LIC OF INDIA Vs. KULDEEP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 11.9.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant following directions have been given to the appellant-opposite parties: " (i) To pay Rs.1,00,000 with interest @ 10% p. a. w. e. f.7.7.2001 when the basic claim was paid till its realisation, (ii) To pay Rs.5,000 for harassment and mental agony, (iii) To pay Rs.1,000 for costs of proceedings. "

(2.) Put shortly, the facts of the case are that Bahadur Singh husband of the complainant had taken Life Insurance Policy No.171612502 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000 with double accident benefits from the opposite parties. The policy commenced from 28.6.1998. The mode of the premium was half yearly. On account of non-payment of the premium due on 28.12.2000 the policy in question lapsed. Said Bahadur Singh met with an accident on 1.4.2001 and died on 4.4.2001. Before his death the policy in question was revived on 3.4.2001. The complainant being nominee and widow of the deceased put up the insurance claim with the opposite parties. The opposite parties made the payment of the basic sum assured along with bonus amounting to Rs.1,19,600 but denied the double accident benefits as per letter dated 10.9.2001 on the plea that on the date of accident, the policy in question was lying lapsed and was not enforced. Aggrieved by the action of the opposite parties the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum by filing the present complaint claiming the accident benefit amount equal to the sum assured. The opposite parties contested the complaint. They justified the repudiation on the ground that the policy in question was revived on 3.4.2001 after the accident and for that reason double accident benefit under the policy could not be extended to her. Accordingly, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. The District Forum on the basis of the above pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record found no substance in the stand of the opposite parties and while accepting the complaint issued the directions as per order dated 11.9.2003 noticed above. It is against this order the present appeal has been filed. Learned Counsel representing the parties have been heard at length.

(3.) There is no factual dispute in this case. The entire controversy depends upon the interpretation of Clause 10.2 of the policy conditions which reads as under: "10.2 Accident benefit-If at any time when this policy is in force for the full sum assured, the life assured before the expiry of the period for which the premium is payable or before the policy anniversary of which the age near birthday of the life assured is 70, whichever is earlier, is involved in an accident resulting in either permanent disability as hereinafter defined or death and the same is proved to the satisfaction of the Corporation agrees in the case of- (b) Death of the life assured: to pay an additional sum equal to sum assured under the policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "