RESHAM DEVI Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 28.03.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No.338 of 2012 Smt. Resham Devi Vs. The New India Ass. Co. Ltd. & Anr. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint partly was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Karam Chand husband of complainant-petitioner purchased 16 insurance policies from OP No. 1/Respondent No.1through OP No. 2/Respondent No. 2 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each for a period of one year from 18.6.2002 to 17.6.2003 and benefits were payable as mentioned in paragraphs 3 of the complaint. On 30.3.2003, Karam Chand fell down from stair case and sustained injuries and was taken to Janta Charitable Hospital from where he was referred to Maharaja Agrasain Hospital on 31.3.2003 and he expired on 2.4.2003. Claim was filed by the complainant for the amount of 16 policies and Rs.50,000/- as expenses incurred in treatment. OP has not paid amount so far. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP No. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that claim was not yet rejected and it was pre-mature complaint. It was further submitted that one person could have been given only one policy and in such circumstances, OP was liable only for Rs.1,00,000/- subject to accidental death and genuine claim. It was further submitted that complaint was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. Also alleged that subsequent policies taken after first policy are null and void and prayed for dismissal of complaint. . OP No. 2 did not appear before District Forum and was proceeded ex-parte. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint partly and directed OP No. 1 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- along with 10% p.a. interest and also awarded Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) None appeared for Respondent No. 2 even after service and he was proceeded exparte.