TSR VENKATRAMANA Vs. BRANCH MANAGER LIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant who is not satisfied with the award passed by the District Forum/ is the appellant. The opposite party Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) announced opening of a new policy called Asha Deep from 7.9.1993 to 30.11.1993 as per which the policy holders would be adequately compensated in the unfortunate event of his contracting one year after the policy any of the diseases like cancer, paralysis, kidney failure or heart problem. The complainant opted to take up that Asha Deep policy for his life to the value of Rs.1,00,000/-. He paid a premium of Rs.5.926/-for that policy on 11.9.1993 under a receipt issued by the opposite party. The complainant was directed to appear before an eye doctor. He was found to have Myopia. According to the complainant he did not receive the policy from the opposite party. When he contacted the opposite party he was told that the matter was pending in their Bombay office. Surprisingly on 21.5.1994 the complainant received a registered letter from the opposite party alongwith a demand draft for Rs.5,876/-stating that the proposal for the policy made by the complainant was cancelled and hence the deposit amount was being refunded. Since according to the complainant', the proposal was cancelled without any acceptable reason, the opposite party is guilty of deficiency in service and, therefore, they shall be directed to give the policy and also to pay compensation.

(2.) The opposite party in their written version contended that the complainant had declared in the proposal form that he was wearing glasses the power of which was -16 in both eyes, and hence the opposite party had to refer the matter to their Central Office for their consideration and decision. As per the practice, the complainant was requested to submit an opthalmic report. By the time the complainant complied with the said requirement on 30.11.1993 the special plan viz. Asha Deep to which the proposal was made, came to an end. Therefore, the opposite party cancelled the proposal and refunded the initial premium made towards the proposal deposit. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The District Forum, on consideration of the pleadings and evidence, came to the conclusion that without any reason the opposite party, has cancelled the proposal and, therefore, it was guilty of deficiency in service. It has not made any order regarding the issuance of the policy, but however it had awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-as compensation. The opposite party has not preferred any appeal, but the complainant, as stated above, has preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum has failed to direct the opposite party to issue the policy and that the compensation awarded by it is also low.