SAVITA DEVI & ANR W/O SURESH KUAMR GAUTAM Vs. I D B I FEDERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Savita Devi & anr. against the order dated 08.03.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in First Appeal No.101 of 2015.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the son of the petitioners Sh. Deepak Kumar Gautam as well as their daughter-in-law namely Smt. Cheema Devi were contacted by an agent of the respondent Insurance Company and both of them in order to get themselves insured, agreeing to take IDBI Federal Term Insurance Protection Plan executed proposal form and other relevant papers. On 07.01.2011, the proposal form of Smt. Cheema Devi bearing No.107024497 was filed up and handed over to the concerned agent on the same day and along with the said form a cheque bearing No.009243 dated 07.01.2011 amounting to Rs.4,360/- was also issued out of the account of Mr. Deepak Kumar Gautam i.e. husband of Cheema Devi on account of the premium to be paid for the policy. On 12.01.2011, the said cheque was enchased by the respondent. The respondent also issued an acknowledgement/receipt on 12.01.2011 itself confirming the amount of premium as well as the other relevant details qua the policy of Smt. Cheema Devi. On 27.01.2011, unfortunately, son and daughter in law of the petitioners died in an accident near Kurukshtera. On 08.03.2011, the claim qua the son of the petitioners was released by the Insurance Company but the claim of daughter- in -law namely, Smt. Cheema Devi was not released. Surprisingly, to the shock of the petitioners, they received an envelope, which contained a cheque amount to Rs.4360/- along with a written letter stating therein that "We have not received the documents requested by us to facilitate the processing of your proposal within stipulated time, but we have been constrained to refund your application, further it was mentioned that as a consequence of that we have processed a refund of initial premium paid by you".

(3.) Consequently, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint being No.34/12. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party by filing the written statement. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal, (in short 'the District Forum') vide order dated 11.12.2014 dismissed the complaint.