Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against an order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh. The appellants, Umesh Babu and another, are complainants who had filed a consumer complaint against Max Life Insurance Company Ltd. regarding an insurance policy. The insurer contended that the life assured died on 02.12.2015, but the policy was obtained posthumously on 23.09.2016, alleging forgery and fraud. Additionally, the death certificate of the life assured was cancelled by the Secretary of the Village, and the complainants took no action against this cancellation. The National Commission, after hearing the counsel for the appellants, observed that the matter involves serious allegations of forgery, fraud, and fabrication of documents, which require detailed examination of evidence. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in The Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. R. Chandramohan (2023 SCC OnLine SC 341), the Commission held that consumer fora cannot adjudicate such matters. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed, but the complainants were granted liberty to approach appropriate fora for their grievance, with the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the period spent before consumer fora.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Jurisdiction of Consumer Fora - Allegations of Forgery and Fraud - Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - The matter involved serious allegations of forgery, fraud, and fabrication of documents regarding the death of the life assured and the policy obtained posthumously. The National Commission held that consumer fora lack jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in City Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. R. Chandramohan. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to approach appropriate fora. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a consumer forum can adjudicate a dispute involving serious allegations of forgery, fraud, and fabrication of documents
Final Decision
Second Appeal dismissed. Complainants granted liberty to approach appropriate fora with respect to grievance, if any, and may invoke provisions of Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 for period spent in consumer litigation.
Law Points
- Consumer Fora cannot adjudicate matters involving serious allegations of forgery
- fraud
- and fabrication of documents
- as per The Chairman & Managing Director
- City Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. R. Chandramohan
- 2023 SCC OnLine SC 341
Case Details
2025 LawText (NCDRC) (01) 10
Second Appeal No. NC/SA/514/2025
AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Presiding Member, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member
Mr. Rohini Kumar, Advocate
Max Life Insurance Company Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh in a consumer complaint regarding insurance claim
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to challenge the order of the State Commission and obtain relief under the insurance policy
Filing Reason
Alleged forgery and fraud in obtaining insurance policy posthumously; death certificate cancelled by village secretary
Previous Decisions
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh passed order in Appeal SC/9/A/2074/2023 on 12th March 2025
Issues
Whether consumer fora have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes involving serious allegations of forgery, fraud, and fabrication of documents
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants' counsel argued that the matter involves serious allegations of forgery and fraud; no action taken against cancellation of death certificate
Ratio Decidendi
Consumer fora cannot adjudicate matters involving serious allegations of forgery, fraud, and fabrication of documents, as such matters require detailed examination of evidence and are beyond the summary jurisdiction of consumer fora, as held by the Supreme Court in City Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. R. Chandramohan.
Judgment Excerpts
The matter entails serious allegation of forgery, fraud and fabrication of documents wherein it is the specific contention of the Opposite Party/Insurer that the death of the individual concerned occurred on 02.12.2015 and that the policy in question was obtained post his death on 23.09.2016.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. R. Chandramohan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 341, decided on 27.03.2023, has crystalized the absence of scope for consumer fora to adjudicate the matters entailing allegations of forgery and fraud etc. could not have been adjudicated by consumer fora.
Procedural History
The complainants filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, which was appealed to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (Appeal SC/9/A/2074/2023). The State Commission passed an order on 12th March 2025. Aggrieved, the complainants filed the present second appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which was dismissed on 13th August 2025.
Acts & Sections
- Limitation Act, 1963: Section 14
