LAWS(NCD)-2017-12-111

POONAM ARORA Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

Decided On December 12, 2017
POONAM ARORA Appellant
V/S
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 13.07.2017, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 211/2010, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Poonam Arora , vide which, while dismissing the appeal of the opposite party (OP) Insurance Company, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on 13.01.2010 in Consumer Complaint No. 68/2006, filed by the petitioner Poonam Arora, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the husband of the complainant Poonam Arora, P.K. Arora died on 06.05.2004 in a roadside accident near Mathura, U.P. During his life time, he had obtained a credit card issued by the OP-1, the Indian Overseas Bank. The said card was issued with personal accident insurance benefit of Rs. 2 lakhs. After the death of her husband, when the complainant Poonam Arora approached the Bank (OP-1) and the respondent Insurance Company (OP-2) for getting the accident insurance benefit, her claim was repudiated, following which, she filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the Insurance Company to release the amount of claim i.e. Rs. 2 lakhs alongwith interest @ 18% per annum in her favour. In their reply filed before the District Forum, the Insurance Company stated that the said credit card had been cancelled by the Indian Overseas Bank on 01.01.2004. The claim was, therefore, not payable and the consumer complaint was liable to be dismissed. The Insurance Company stated that P.K. Arora was not maintaining sufficient credit balance in his account, as laid down in the terms governing the credit card and hence, the same was cancelled by the Bank.

(3.) The District Forum, after taking into account the averments of the parties, allowed the consumer complaint vide their order dated 13.01.2010, by which it was directed as under:-