/2022 INSC 0853/
/2022 INSC 853/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.  6731 OF 2022
Smt. Sulakshna             ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.    …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   dated   04.02.2016   passed   by   the
National   Consumer   Disputes   Redressal   Commission,   New
Delhi  (hereinafter  referred to as the National Commission)
in   Revision   Petition   No.   2675   of   2015,   the   original
complainant has preferred the present appeal.    
2. There   was   an   agreement   between   respondent   No.   1   and
respondent   No.   2   herein   regarding   issuance   of   insurance
cover. It was a group insurance. That a sum of Rs. 4,000/­
was deposited with respondent No. 2 towards premium on
31.12.2006.   Respondent   No.   2  issued   a  cover   note  on  the
very   day   i.e.,   31.12.2006.   The   husband   of   original
1

complainant   died   on   17.02.2007   in   a   road   accident.
However,   it   appears   that   respondent   No.   1   –   insurance
company issued policies for the period from 09.03.2007 to
08.02.2008  on   the  ground   that   respondent   No.   2  credited
the   amount   of   premium   on   09.03.2007.     Therefore,
respondent No. 1 – insurance company refused to pay the
amount   and   refused   to   settle   the   claim.   Therefore,   the
complainant   filed   Complaint   Case   No.   132/10   before   the
District   Consumer   Disputes   Redressal   Forum,   Rohtak
(hereinafter   referred  to  as  the  District  Forum). In  the   said
complaint, a statement was made on behalf of the counsel
appearing for respondent No. 1 – insurance company that
they will settle the claim of complainant within time period
of   one   month   if   the   complainant   submits   required
document to the company. Accordingly, the District Forum
disposed   of   the   said   complaint   vide   order   dated
14.10.2010. However, thereafter, the claim was not settled
and  therefore,  the appellant  herein  – original complainant
again approached the District Forum being Complaint No.
278.   By   order   dated   13.01.2015,   the   District   Forum
allowed the  said complaint  and directed  respondent  No. 1
2

to   pay   the   sum   insured   in   the   respective   policies
amounting   to   Rs.   2,50,000/­   and   Rs.   2,00,000/­   along
with interest @ 9% per annum. 
2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by
the District Forum allowing the complaint, respondent No.
1   –   insurance   company   preferred   the   appeal   before   the
State   Consumer   Disputes   Redressal   Commission
(hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   State   Commission)   being
First   Appeal   No.   169   of   2015.   The   State   Commission
dismissed   the   said   appeal.   Thereafter,   respondent   No.   1
preferred   revision   petition   before   the   National   Consumer
Disputes   Redressal   Commission.   By   the   impugned
judgment and order, the National Commission has allowed
the   said   revision   petition   preferred   by   respondent   No.   1
herein   and   set   aside   the   order(s)   passed   by   the   District
Forum and State Commission, which has given rise to the
present appeal at the instance of the original complainant.
3. Having   heard   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
respective   parties   at   length   and   having   gone   through   the
judgment and order(s) passed by the District Forum, State
Commission   and   National   Commission   and   the   relevant
3

material   on   record   and   the   certificate   dated   01.12.2005
issued   by   the   Divisional   Manager,   it   can   be   seen   that
respondent   No.   2   herein   was   authorised   to   accept   the
premium   for   and   on   behalf   of   respondent   No.   1   –
insurance   company.   Thereafter,   it   was   for   respondent   No.
2   to   recover   the   amount   of   premium   for   and   on   behalf   of
respondent   No.   1   –   insurance   company   and   was   required
to   remit   the   same   to   respondent   No.   1   –   insurance
company   and   the   policy   was   required   to   be   issued   by   the
insurance   company.   It   is   the   case   on   behalf   of   the
complainant   that   the   deceased   husband   paid   the   amount
of   premium   of   Rs.   4,000/­   with   respondent   No.   2   on
31.12.2006   and   therefore   the   insurance   cover   would
commence   from   the   completion   of   the   fifteen   (15)   days   of
payment of premium. It may be true that respondent No. 2
might   have   remitted   the   premium   with   the   insurance
company  belatedly. However, for  the same insured cannot
be   made   to   suffer.   Under   the   circumstances,   the   insured
shall be entitled to the amount insured under the policies
for which the amount of premium was already paid prior to
the   death   of   the   insured.   Under   the   circumstances,   the
4

National   Commission   has   committed   a   very   serious   error
in   allowing   the   revision   petition   and   setting   aside   the
orders   passed   by   the   District   Forum   as   well   as   the   State
Commission. The impugned judgment and order passed by
the National Commission is unsustainable. 
4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present   appeal   succeeds.   The   impugned   judgment   and
order   passed   by   the   National   Consumer   Disputes
Redressal   Commission   in   Revision   Petition   No.   2675   of
2015   is   hereby   quashed   and   set   aside.   The   order   passed
by the District Forum confirmed by the State Commission
is   hereby   restored.   The   appellant   shall   be   entitled   to   the
claim amount under the policies along with the interest as
ordered   by   the   District   Forum   to   be   deposited   within   a
period   of   eight   weeks   from   today.   The   present   appeal   is
accordingly allowed. No costs.     
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
SEPTEMBER 23, 2022 [KRISHNA MURARI]
5