VIRENDRA KUMAR MANCHANDA Vs. LIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant is the appellant who has preferred the appeal against the order dated 4.12.1995 passed by District Forum, Patna in Complaint Case No.781/92 whereby the complaint has been dismissed and a cost of Rs.500/- was awarded against the complainant to be paid to the O. P.-L. I. C. for filing the frivolous complaint.

(2.) The brief fact of the case is that the complainant filed the case before the District Forum with a prayer for a direction to the L. I. C. to return his policy bond and allowed him to run the policy to its full period. The complainant had taken two life insurance policies on 28.3.1987 for Rs.50,000/- and on 23.8.1989 for Rs.35,000/-. Both the policies were Jeevan Sathi policy along with the wife of the complainant and covered the risk of both the partners. The wife of the complainant died on 2.8.1990 and he filed a claim under the aforesaid policy before the L. I. C. but it was rejected. Later on, an ex gratia payment of Rs.85,000/- was offered to the complainant on the condition that the aforesaid policies would no longer operate after the payment of the aforesaid amount. The complainant agreed and accepted a sum of Rs.85,000/- from the O. P. The complainant again filed a complaint with a claim for continuance of his policy on his own life after the death of his wife and also prayed for a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the harassment and mental agony.

(3.) The O. P.-L. I. C. appeared and filed written statement stating therein that claim of the complainant has been repudiated on merit but on a representation made by him to the Chairman of the L. I. C. a compassionate view was taken and a sum of Rs.85,000/- as ex gratia payment was offered to the complainant on the condition that two policies would be closed after the payment of the said amount. The complainant wilfully accepted the amount of Rs.85,000/- on the terms and conditions aforesaid and he accepted the amount without any objection. Therefore, he is now estopped from his any acceptance made earlier. The L. I. C. 's further contention was that claim of the complainant is frivolous and it is with a view to harass the L. I. C. and to extract further money from it.