LIC OF INDIA Vs. NAWAL KISHORE SOMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against the order dated 28.7.2008 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur IInd, Jaipur by which while allowing the complaint filed by the respondent the District Forum has directed the appellant to issue the policy of Rs. 5 lakh for 21 years in pursuance to receipt dated 17.3.2006 within two months along with additional amount for mental agony and legal expenses.

(2.) AS has come on record a proposal for policy was made by the respondent on 11.9.2005 for 21 years. There is no dispute that the respondent was suffering from Ischemic Heart disease and Angina since 2003 and had already undergone coronary angioplasty putting a stent in coronary artery. The matter was examined by the Zonal Office as also by the Central Office of the Corporation and a fresh proposal was sent to the complainant on 11.3.2006 that considering the disease suffered by the respondent he may give consent for a policy of lesser period with higher premium. Though the policy had never been issued in favour of the complainant, however, relying on the receipt dated 17.3.2006 for first premium, the complainant without giving his consent as proposed continue to make correspondence with the authorities for issuing him policy as originally proposed so that he may submit the same to his employer. It has only on the basis of the receipt dated 17.3.2006 and the subsequent correspondence made by the complainant the complaint was filed in January 2007 before the District Forum with the prayer for issuing the policy as proposed and adequate compensation for deficiency in services.

(3.) IN counter it has been submitted by the appellant Corporation that since the complainant was suffering from heart ailment for quite long, the original proposal was never accepted and as per policy of the Corporation a fresh proposal was sent to the complainant for his consent which he never gave. So far as the receipt dated 17.3.2006 is concerned, it has been submitted that the same was never issued to the complainant and after examining the whole file the Br. Manager cancelled the receipt on 17.3.2006 itself. A copy of the original receipt hasalsobeen submitted by the appellant before the District Forum. Since the complainant failed to give his consent for the fresh proposal, the premium was refunded to the complainant in August 2006. A detailed affidavit regarding the facts mentioned in the reply filed on behalf of the Corporation had been submitted mentioning all the facts in regard to cancellation of the receipt on 17.3.2006 itself and refund of the premium. The facts mentioned in the affidavit of the then Br. Manager filed on behalf of the Corporation have neither been contradicted nor was rebutted by the complainant by filing any rejoinder or counter affidavit. It has not been explained by the complainant as to how he could get the photo copy of the receipt dated 17.3.2006. In none of the correspondence made by the complainant till September 2006 it,has been mentioned that the original receipt was taken back by the authorities for necessary corrections. However, it was first time in the complaint made before the District Forum there have been a vague allegation that the receipt was taken back by the authorities for necessary correction and the photo copy was retained by the complainant.