Tribunals and Commissions(1996) 05 NCDRC CK 0037

KISHORI LAL ARORA vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 17 May 1996 · Citation: 1996 2 CPJ 407 : 1997 1 CPR 46

HON’BLE JUDGES
J.B.Garg , Sada Nand , P.Ojha J.
RESULT
Appeal dismissed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 339 words
1.

KISHORI Lal Arora a resident of Chandigarh got his son Sachin Arora insured on 9.8.95. The sum of money stipulated was Rs. 25,000/-. Because the insured was less than 12 years, the date of maturity was deferred at the time of issuance of the policy. Sachin Arora died in an accident on 31.1.92. The sum of Rs. 5,652/- contributed by the complainant-father of the deceased as premium has been refunded. However claim for the balance amount of Rs. 19,347/- has been repudiated.

2.

THE complaint of Kishori Lai Arora, father of the deceased claiming the insurance amount on account of death of his son Sachin Arora has been dismissed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, UT., Chandigarh on 9.12.94 and aggrieved against it the present appeal has been attempted. Life Insurance Corporation of India, the respondent has filed a reply wherein it has been averred that the policy in question was under ''New Children''s Deferred Assurance Plan'' Annexure R-l. Since the death of the child took place before the stipulated date only refund of the premium deposited has been made. The date of birth of Sachin Arora, the child as given in the policy was 10.2.80 and at the time of the execution of the policy on 9.8.85 he was 5 years 5 months and 29 days. Since Sachine Arora died on 31.1.92 as mentioned in para No. 2 of the present complaint the age of the deceased was 11 years 11 months and 20 days and he had not completed even the required age of 12 years. Since the repudiation of the claim was in line with the terms and conditions of the policy it could not be said that there was any malafide or deficiency on the part of the respondent. In the circumstances, there is no good ground for interference in the order of the District Forum, UT, Chandigarh and the appeal stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Announced. The order be communicate to the parties free of charges. Appeal dismissed.