- (1.) THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , is directed against the order dated 28.8.2001 in Complaint No. 134/2000 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sarguja (hereinafter called the District Forum for short) directing the appellant insurer to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - and Rs. 50,000/ -, totalling Rs. 70,000/ - towards the two policies obtained by the deceased Ram Awtar.
(2.) UNDISPUTABLY deceased Ram Awtar, husband of complainant/respondent obtained two money back policies from the appellant/insurer for assured sum of Rs. 20,000/ - and Rs. 50,000/ - on 28.3.1993 and 28.12.1992 respectively. The amount of premium was deducted from the salary of deceased Ram Awtar and was remitted to the appellant/insurer. It is also not in dispute that the said policies were with extended double benefit i.e., in case of death due to accident, additional amount equal to the assured amount was payable under the said policies. Further, it is also not in dispute that the deceased Ram Awtar died during the subsistence of the policy. The complainant/respondent laid claim under the policies for payment of the amount with extended double benefit. Though assured amount under the policies were undisputably paid to the complainant/respondent but the extended double benefit was not allowed by the appellant/insurer on the ground that extended double benefit was not available to the complainant in view of Clauses 10(b)(i) and 10(b)(iv) which provides that Corporation shall not be liable to pay additional sum referred to in case of death of the life assured caused by intentional self injury, attempted suicide, insanity or immorality or whilst the life assured is under the influence of intoxicating liquor, drug or narcotic or resulted from the life assured committing breach of law.
(3.) THE complainant felt aggrieved by the denial of his claim for extended double benefit. Accordingly, she preferred complaint before the District Forum. The complaint was resisted by the appellant/insurer. According to them the death of deceased Ram Awtar was not on account of accident but it was due to illicit love affair which cannot be treated as an accident. Hence they justified repudiation of the claim for extended double benefit to the complainant/respondent.;