CWP-37413-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT 1. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission & others 2. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited National Consumer Disputes CORAM: Present: GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. 1. This order shall dispose of aforementioned two of the petitioner common order Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Petition No.1936 of 2024 and Revision Petition No.1937 of 2024 petitioners (O&M) ( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES AT CHANDIGARH ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited Versus National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission & others ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited Versus National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission & others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Mr. Hitender Kansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Arjun Kundra and Mr. Prateek Singh, Advocates, for respondent No.4. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. This order shall dispose of aforementioned two petitioner – ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. common order dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure P Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission No.1936 of 2024 and Revision Petition No.1937 of 2024 challenging common order dated FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-37413-2025 (O&M) Limited … Petitioner National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission & others ... Respondent CWP-37415-2025 (O&M) ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited … Petitioner Redressal Commission & others ... Respondent Date of Decision: 02.04.2026 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Advocate, Kundra and Mr. Prateek Singh, Advocates, This order shall dispose of aforementioned two writ petitions filed on behalf ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. assailing (Annexure P-15) passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), whereby Revision No.1936 of 2024 and Revision Petition No.1937 of 2024 filed by the order dated 05.03.2024 (Annexure P-1 Petitioner ... Respondents Petitioner ... Respondents petitions filed on behalf ing passed by the National evision by the 14) VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-37413-2025 (O&M) passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Appeal No.A/314/2023 filed on behalf of respondent No.4 and Appeal No.A/82/2024 filed on behalf of the petitioner 2. A few facts necessary to notice for disposal of petitioner – Group Loan Secure Policy Singh Sra had also been insured. However, said Amandeep Singh Sra died within 10 months Kanwalpreet Kaur complaint asserting accidental death, petitioner – within one year. Respondent complaint before the District Consumer Dispute Chandigarh (Annexure P under: “15. Hence, the present complaint deserves to be partly same is accordingly partly allowed. OP No.1 is amount of Rs.46,80,329/ paid by OP No.1 to OP No.2 i.e. 80% of the total premium amount) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 04.06.2020 till the da the balance outstanding principal loan amount account No.844903. OP No.2 is also directed to accept and adjust the above said amount towards settlement of the Housing Loan Account No.844903 and issue an acknow the balance loan amount, if any (in case the loan amount is excessive than the awarded amount) or pay the balance amount to the (O&M) ( 2 ) passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Appeal No.A/314/2023 filed on behalf of respondent No.4 and Appeal No.A/82/2024 filed on behalf of the petitioner A few facts necessary to notice for disposal of – Insurance Company had issued a master policy under Group Loan Secure Policy’ bearing number 234435996 had also been insured. However, said Amandeep Singh Sra died within 10 months of issuance of said policy Kanwalpreet Kaur i.e. the widow of Amandeep Singh Sra complaint asserting accidental death, but – Insurance Company on the premise within one year. Respondent No.4 - Kanwalpreet Kaur consequently filed a complaint before the District Consumer Dispute Chandigarh, which was partly allowed vide order dated nnexure P-13). The operative part of the said order is reproduced herein Hence, the present complaint deserves to be partly same is accordingly partly allowed. OP No.1 is amount of Rs.46,80,329/- (Rs.47,93,516/ paid by OP No.1 to OP No.2 i.e. 80% of the total premium amount) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 04.06.2020 till the date of actual refund/release to OP No.2 towards the balance outstanding principal loan amount account No.844903. OP No.2 is also directed to accept and adjust the above said amount towards settlement of the Housing Loan Account No.844903 and issue an acknowledgement/loan settlement to the complainant after receiving the balance loan amount, if any (in case the loan amount is excessive than the awarded amount) or pay the balance amount to the passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) Appeal No.A/314/2023 filed on behalf of respondent No.4 and Appeal No.A/82/2024 filed on behalf of the petitioner, have been dismissed. A few facts necessary to notice for disposal of both the petitions are that the had issued a master policy under ‘ICICI Pru bearing number 234435996, wherein Amandeep had also been insured. However, said Amandeep Singh Sra died issuance of said policy. Thereafter, respondent No.4 the widow of Amandeep Singh Sra, lodged a but the same was declined by the ompany on the premises that it was a case of suicide Kanwalpreet Kaur consequently filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which was partly allowed vide order dated 01.09.2023 The operative part of the said order is reproduced herein Hence, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP No.1 is directed to release an (Rs.47,93,516/- minus Rs.1,13,187/- already paid by OP No.1 to OP No.2 i.e. 80% of the total premium amount) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim te of actual refund/release to OP No.2 towards the balance outstanding principal loan amount account No.844903. OP No.2 is also directed to accept and adjust the above said amount towards settlement of the Housing Loan Account No.844903 and issue ledgement/loan settlement to the complainant after receiving the balance loan amount, if any (in case the loan amount is excessive than the awarded amount) or pay the balance amount to the in Appeal No.A/314/2023 filed on behalf of respondent No.4 and Appeal the petitions are that the Pru wherein Amandeep had also been insured. However, said Amandeep Singh Sra died Thereafter, respondent No.4 – lodged a declined by the that it was a case of suicide Kanwalpreet Kaur consequently filed a Commission, 01.09.2023 The operative part of the said order is reproduced herein- VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-37413-2025 (O&M) complainant, if any (in case the loan amount is lesser than awarded amount). 3. Aggrieved against the said order dated respondent No.4 Company preferred No.A/82/2024 respectively, order dated (Appeal No.A/82/2024) partly accept – Kanwalpreet Kaur “30. In view of above, Appeal No.314 of 2023 "Kanwalpreet Kaur Vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.", stands partly accepted. The orders of the Learned District and Respondents/Opposite Parties are directed as under: (i) (ii) (iii) (O&M) ( 3 ) complainant, if any (in case the loan amount is lesser than awarded amount).” Aggrieved against the said order dated 01.09.2023 (Annexure P respondent No.4 – Kanwalpreet Kaur as well as the petitioner preferred separate appeals i.e. Appeal No.A/31 /82/2024 respectively, before the SCDRC order dated 05.03.2024 (Annexure P-14) (Appeal No.A/82/2024) filed by the petitioner partly accepting the appeal (Appeal No.A/314/2023) Kanwalpreet Kaur, issued the following directions: In view of above, Appeal No.314 of 2023 "Kanwalpreet Kaur Vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.", stands partly accepted. The orders of the Learned District and Respondents/Opposite Parties are directed as under: Opposite Party No.1 is directed to make the payment of entire loan amount outstanding, along with upto date interest accrued thereon, out of the death benefit of ₹1,13,187/- already paid by OP No.1 to OP No.2 i.e. 80% of the total premium amount) and additional accidental death benefit of ₹47,93,516/- payable to the Complainant/ Appellant and thereafter, the balance amount shall be paid to the Appellant/Complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of death i.e. 06.06.2019 till realization. Opposite Party No.2 is also directed to issue an acknowledgement/loan settlement to the receiving the balance loan amount forthwith. This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties jointly and severally, within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @12% p.a., instead of 9% p.a. from the date of death i.e. 06.06.2019 till realization.” complainant, if any (in case the loan amount is lesser than awarded 01.09.2023 (Annexure P-13), both as well as the petitioner – Insurance i.e. Appeal No.A/314/2023 and Appeal before the SCDRC. The SCDRC vide common 14), while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner – Insurance Company and (Appeal No.A/314/2023) filed by respondent No.4 issued the following directions: In view of above, Appeal No.314 of 2023 "Kanwalpreet Kaur Vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.", stands partly accepted. The orders of the Learned District Commission are modified and Respondents/Opposite Parties are directed as under:- Opposite Party No.1 is directed to make the payment of entire loan amount outstanding, along with upto date interest accrued thereon, out of the death benefit of ₹47,93,516/- (minus already paid by OP No.1 to OP No.2 i.e. 80% of the total premium amount) and additional accidental death benefit of payable to the Complainant/ Appellant and thereafter, the balance amount shall be paid to the Complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of death i.e. 06.06.2019 till realization. Opposite Party No.2 is also directed to issue an acknowledgement/loan settlement to the complainant after receiving the balance loan amount forthwith. This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties jointly and severally, within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @12% p.a., instead of 9% p.a. from the date of death i.e. both Insurance /2023 and Appeal common while dismissing the appeal and ed by respondent No.4 VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-37413-2025 (O&M) 4. Still aggrieved, the petitioner petitions before the NCDRC challenging order dated P-14), which also came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure P 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner 19.08.2025 where the deceased Amandeep Sing rightly reported in a newspaper and as is also report, which shows that there was an entry wound on the one side of skull of the deceased and an exit wound on other side of skull of the such like shot could not have been accidentally fired. context has drawn the attention of this Court to the copy of the post report (Annexure P reproduced Examination of External Injuries Sr. No. Injuries 1. Entry wound with blackening around its margins in the form of lacerated punctured wound 0.5 x 0.5 cm present on right temporal area of head. Margins were inverted clotted blood present. On dissection extra cranial haemoloma present on fronto parieto temp area on right side. Fracture of frontal, right parietal and right temporal bone present. Infiltration of blood present at fracture ends. On removing the cranial vault beveling of inner cable of skull present. Meninges torn, lacerated wound present area. Tracking of wound present towards left parieto temporal area, corresponding exist wound with beveling on its outer lable of skull and facerated punctured wound with size 0.6 x side of head. (O&M) ( 4 ) Still aggrieved, the petitioner - Insurance Company before the NCDRC challenging order dated which also came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure P-15), which is being assailed before this Court Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure P-15) vehemently argued that where the deceased Amandeep Singh Sra had committed suicide, as was rightly reported in a newspaper and as is also report, which shows that there was an entry wound on the one side of skull of the deceased and an exit wound on other side of skull of the such like shot could not have been accidentally fired. context has drawn the attention of this Court to the copy of the post report (Annexure P-17). The relevant extract herein-under: Examination of External Injuries Injuries Entry wound with blackening around its margins in the form of lacerated punctured wound 0.5 x 0.5 cm present on right temporal area of head. Margins were inverted clotted blood present. On dissection extra cranial haemoloma present on fronto parieto temp area on right side. Fracture of frontal, right parietal and right temporal bone present. Infiltration of blood present at fracture ends. On removing the cranial vault beveling of inner cable of skull present. Meninges torn, lacerated wound present on right temporopanial area. Tracking of wound present towards left parieto temporal area, corresponding exist wound with beveling on its outer lable of skull and facerated punctured wound with size 0.6 x 0.6 cm on the left side of head. Insurance Company filed separate revision before the NCDRC challenging order dated 05.03.2024 (Annexure which also came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 15), which is being assailed before this Court. while assailing the impugned order dated ) vehemently argued that it is admittedly a case h Sra had committed suicide, as was rightly reported in a newspaper and as is also found from the post-mortem report, which shows that there was an entry wound on the one side of skull of the deceased and an exit wound on other side of skull of the deceased and such like shot could not have been accidentally fired. Learned counsel in this context has drawn the attention of this Court to the copy of the post-mortem 17). The relevant extract from the post-mortem report is Marked Injury Number Entry wound with blackening around its margins in the form of lacerated punctured wound 0.5 x 0.5 cm present on right temporal area of head. Margins were inverted clotted blood present. On dissection extra cranial haemoloma present on fronto parieto temporal area on right side. Fracture of frontal, right parietal and right temporal bone present. Infiltration of blood present at fracture ends. On removing the cranial vault beveling of inner cable of skull present. Meninges on right temporopanial area. Tracking of wound present towards left parieto temporal area, corresponding exist wound with beveling on its outer lable of skull and facerated 0.6 cm on the left No revision (Annexure which also came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated while assailing the impugned order dated it is admittedly a case h Sra had committed suicide, as was mortem report, which shows that there was an entry wound on the one side of skull of deceased and Learned counsel in this mortem mortem report is Number VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-37413-2025 (O&M) 6. Learned counsel ha petition. It has further been submitted that the matter had been got investigated by the investigator of the Insurance Company, who had found that it was a case of suicide and not of accidental fire. 7. We have considered the aforesaid submissions counsel for the petitioner well as the documents annexed therein 8. In the present case, the matter was duly investigated by the police and pursuant to the investigation, it was found that A due to accidental firing from his licensed weapon and consequently a closure report (Annexure P Divisional Magistrate, Mohali State, which had the case to be a case of accidental firing and had filed closure report, which was duly accepted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate be discarded solely on th conducted by the investigator of the Insurance Company itself. not find any infirmity in the findings 9. In any case, the scope of interference in writ jurisdiction said order would be very limited i.e. if there is some sheer perversity in the impugned order or there in the instant case. Vs. Prakash Chand Goel, AIR 2022 SC 422 interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, held as under: “18. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for (O&M) ( 5 ) counsel has also referred to a copy of news item annexed with the It has further been submitted that the matter had been got investigated by the investigator of the Insurance Company, who had found that it was a case of suicide and not of accidental fire. considered the aforesaid submissions counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the entire petition well as the documents annexed therein. In the present case, the matter was duly investigated by the police and pursuant to the investigation, it was found that A due to accidental firing from his licensed weapon and consequently a closure report (Annexure P-11) was submitted, which was duly accepted by the Divisional Magistrate, Mohali. We find that , which had duly examined the matter and upon investigation had found the case to be a case of accidental firing and had filed closure report, which was duly accepted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate be discarded solely on the basis of some news report or some conducted by the investigator of the Insurance Company itself. not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the In any case, the scope of interference in writ jurisdiction said order would be very limited i.e. if there is some sheer perversity in the impugned order or if there is some sheer misreading of evidence, which is not there in the instant case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash Chand Goel, AIR 2022 SC 422 interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, held as under: Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for referred to a copy of news item annexed with the It has further been submitted that the matter had been got investigated by the investigator of the Insurance Company, who had found that it was a case of suicide and not of accidental fire. considered the aforesaid submissions raised on behalf of learned and have also gone through the entire petitions In the present case, the matter was duly investigated by the police and pursuant to the investigation, it was found that Amandeep Singh Sra had died due to accidental firing from his licensed weapon and consequently a closure 11) was submitted, which was duly accepted by the Sub We find that it is investigating agency of the duly examined the matter and upon investigation had found the case to be a case of accidental firing and had filed closure report, which was duly accepted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Such like report cannot e basis of some news report or some investigation conducted by the investigator of the Insurance Company itself. Thus, we recorded by the NCDRC. In any case, the scope of interference in writ jurisdiction so as to assail the said order would be very limited i.e. if there is some sheer perversity in the there is some sheer misreading of evidence, which is not The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Garment Craft Prakash Chand Goel, AIR 2022 SC 422, while defining the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, held as under: Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for referred to a copy of news item annexed with the It has further been submitted that the matter had been got investigated by the investigator of the Insurance Company, who had found of learned as In the present case, the matter was duly investigated by the police and mandeep Singh Sra had died due to accidental firing from his licensed weapon and consequently a closure Sub investigating agency of the duly examined the matter and upon investigation had found the case to be a case of accidental firing and had filed closure report, which . Such like report cannot investigation do so as to assail the said order would be very limited i.e. if there is some sheer perversity in the there is some sheer misreading of evidence, which is not M/s Garment Craft , while defining the scope of VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-37413-2025 (O&M) several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. jurisdiction is when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when the perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is miscarriage of justice. 10. Examining the impugned order in the light of ratio of law Garment Craft’s case (supra) impugned order jurisdiction. dismissed. 11. A photocopy of this order be placed on the connected file. 02.04.2026 Vimal (O&M) ( 6 ) several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is miscarriage of justice.” Examining the impugned order in the light of ratio of law Garment Craft’s case (supra), we do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order so as to warrant any interference jurisdiction. Finding no merit in the instant petition dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the connected file. (GURVINDER SINGH GILL (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate re is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no Examining the impugned order in the light of ratio of law laid down in M/s e do not find any perversity or illegality in the any interference in exercise of writ Finding no merit in the instant petitions, the same are hereby A photocopy of this order be placed on the connected file. GURVINDER SINGH GILL) JUDGE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No M/s e do not find any perversity or illegality in the in exercise of writ hereby VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document