VANDANA NIGAM Vs. SUPERINTENDENT POST OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed by the Complainant Vandana Nigam under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned Order dtd. 2/9/2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh in F.A. No. 651 of 2016, vide which the Appeal filed by the Respondents was allowed, the Order of the District Forum was set-aside and the Complaint was dismissed.

(2.) The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant's husband Late Ravindra Pratap Nigam obtained a Postal Life Insurance (PLI) Policy in January 2012 based on the representations of the agents of the Respondents. The Policy bearing no. UP-256645-CS was issued on 2/1/2012, having Policy Value of Rs.5,00,000.00 on a monthly premium of Rs.1,975.00. The Policy was issued on the basis of the Proposal Form submitted by the Late husband of the Complainant, which was filled by the agents. The Policy was also accompanied with the Certificate of Medical Officer giving his recommendation for issuance of Policy. The Late husband regularly paid the premium amount and suddenly passed away on 18/6/2012. The Complainant being the nominee of the Policy filed her claim for the Insurance amount on 12/7/2012 and submitted requisite documents. The claim was rejected by the Respondents vide the letter dtd. 28/4/2014, i.e. one a half year later, on the basis of the Rule 39 of POLI Rule 2011 on the ground that there was concealment of facts. Aggrieved by the wrongful rejection of claim, she filed Complaint before District Forum, Barabanki.

(3.) The District Forum vide its Order dtd. 18/2/2016 in Complaint No. 33 of 2014 allowed the Complaint and directed the Respondents to pay the Policy amount of Rs.5,00,000.00 @9% p.a. from the date of filing of Complaint till its realization, Rs.2,000.00 for mental agony and Rs.1,000.00 towards the litigation cost. The Respondents filed an Appeal before the State Commission, which vide the impugned Order dtd. 14/3/2016 allowed the Appeal, set-aside the Order of the District Forum and dismissed the Complaint. The relevant extracts of the impugned Order are set out as below '