In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission failed to numberice certain relevant factors.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows One Karan Singh Chandel hereinafter referred to as the deceased had taken a Life Insurance Policy and was insured for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ .
The annual premium payable was Rs.12,821/ .
The same was received on 12.7.1995.
1089 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.12792 of 2005 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
The stand of the present appellant was that the policy had lapsed due to number payment of premium in time.
The policy was taken on 28.3.1994.
In terms of the policy, the same became inoperative after one month.
According to the claimant i.e. widow of the deceased, the cheque was issued before the death of the insured and therefore, the appellant companyld number have repudiated the claim.
It was number explained as to why the cheque was issued by Prakash Chand Thakur and number by the insured.
This plea was number accepted by the District Forum on the ground that the cheque was claimed to have been issued on 12.7.1995, but is presumed to have been received earlier than that date.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The insured died on 1.7.1995.
The annual premium which was to be paid on or before 28.3.1995 was number paid.
A cheque drawn on Jogindra Cooperative Bank Ltd. for an amount of Rs.12,821/ purportedly on account of premium along with late fee of Rs.189/ was issued by one Prakash Chand Thakur on 27.6.1995.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in short the National Commission dismissing the Revision Petition filed by the appellant.
Challenge before the Commission was to the order passed in appeal by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla in short the State Commission which in turn had upheld the order passed by the District Forum, Shimla in short the District Forum .
It did number accept the stand of the appellant that the revival was number a matter of right.
