State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Lic Of India Western Zonal Office. vs Sou. Anusuya Madhukar Kadam, on 16 March, 2012
UNDER CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal
No. A/01/1035
(Arisen out of
Order Dated 11/06/2001 in Case No.CC/00/309 of District Kolhapur)
1. LIC OF INDIA WESTERN ZONAL OFFICE.
YOGEKSHEMA, JEEVAN BIMA MARG,
MUMBAI-400 021.
2. BRANCH MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA,
BRANCH NO.949, KEDAR COMPLEX,
204/1, E, NEAR TOURIST HOTEL, STATION ROAD,
KOLHAPUR.
Appellant(s)
Versus
SOU. ANUSUYA MADHUKAR KADAM,
R/O CHIMGAONKAR GALLI,
AT/POST NIPANI,
TALUKA CHIKODI, DIST.BELGAUM (KARNATAKA) Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde MEMBER PRESENT:
Mr.Rajiv Chavan, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr.Sanjay Kadam, son of the Respondent.
O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Kawde Honble Member:(1)
This is an appeal directed against the order dated 11.06.2001 in Consumer Complaint No.309/2000 (Sau Anusuya Madhukar Kadam V/s L.I.C. of India) passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur (the District Forum in short). The District Forum by way of the said order allowed the complaint of the Respondent/original Complainant with a direction to pay an amount of `5,00,000/- with interest @9% per annum and costs of litigation of `200/-.
Dissatisfied and aggrieved with the impugned order the Appellant L.I.C./ original Opponent has preferred this appeal on the ground that the policy was issued under Salary Saving Scheme in the name of Shri Sunil Madhukar Kadam, the deceased life assured with sum assured of `3,000/- which was commenced w.e.f. 19.03.1987. The life assured died on 29.10.1995 and the nominee, the present Respondent/original Complainant filed death claim which was repudiated as the said policy was in lapsed condition for non-payment of premium since June, 1993. However, the District Forum, Kolhapur passed impugned order without going into the merit of the case. The amount of `2,452/- as paid-up value together with bonus was paid to the nominee and therefore, the claim under the policy was acquiesced.(2)
Heard Ld.Advocate of the Appellant and one Shri Sanjay Kadam son of the Respondent/original Complainant. Perused the record. Impugned order apparently seems to have been passed in pursuance of the subsequent endorsement adding Clause No.10 Accident Benefit which reads as below:
CLAUSE NO.10 ACCIDENT BENEFIT:
In terms of Central office Circular Deptt. Actuarist Ref.No.1338/4 dt.11th February, 86 the limit of the Accident Benefit upto a maximum of `1,00,000/- in aggregate under all policies on a single life; has been increased to `5,00,000/-. Consequently wherever the amount `1,00,000/- appears under the Clause should be read as `5,00,000/-.(3)
We have before us the other Appeal bearing No.A/1036/2001 which was also placed for hearing and disposal, was heard, claiming the accident benefit payable under the provision of said additional clause reproduced above. The condition stipulates that w.e.f. 11th February, 1986 the limit of accident benefit upto maximum sum of `1,00,000/- in aggregate under all policies of single life has been increased to `5,00,000/-, which means, in the instant case the deceased life assured, who was having two policies, bearing no. 940751093 with sum assured of `3,000/- and other policy bearing No.945216770 for `25,000/-. Under both the policies disability benefit, in case payable was limited to `5,00,000/-. The interpretation presumably made by the District Forum was based on this new clause adding accident benefit and passed two separate orders allowing `5,00,000/- each as an accident benefit claim under the policies.(4)
Sunil Kadam, claimed to be son of Respondent who was present at the time of hearing admitted that the amount of paid-up value has been paid by the Appellant L.I.C. and accepted by the nominee. We agree with Ld.Advocate of the Appellant who contended that since the paid-up amount together with bonus has already been paid, the impugned order deserves to be set aside as the insurable interest of the Respondent/original Complainant extinguished thereby. On perusal of the record, we find paid-up value is already released in favour of the Respondent/original Complainant somewhere in the month of January, 1994, apparently received without protest, whereas the consumer complaint came to be filed in the year 2000. We find there is no substance in the complaint and the impugned order of the District Forum based on presumption of new clause is required to be quashed and set aside. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 11.06.2001 passed by the District Forum in Consumer Complaint No.309/2000 is hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) In the result Consumer Complaint No.309/2000 stands dismissed.
(iv) Both the parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced on 16th March, 2012.
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member [Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER ep