Rani complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to pay the claim of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum since from 1994 till date and also pay other benefits under policy and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and costs of the complaint. <br /> 2. The complainant is the holder of policy No. 13075934 for Rs.50,000/-. The commencement date of this policy was 17/1/1994 and maturity date is 17/1/2019 so the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties. As per the terms and conditions of the policy the complainant was to pay quarterly installments of Rs.507/-and in case of death or permanent disability of the complainant there was no need to pay installments from the date of disability and in case of permanent disability the opposite parties were liable to pay monthly installments for ten year equal to the sum assured and in addition to this also pay the full insured amount. The complainant regularly paid quarterly installments for about three and a half years but in the year 1996 the complainant received head injury in an accident and had to be hospitalized in Guru Gobind Singh Medical College Hospital, Faridkot for about a 1 month. As the injury was very serious so the complainant became permanently disabled and is still bed ridden and incapable to move. Due to this permanent disability which has been declared as 80% by the doctors, the complainant became entitled for full claim amount and other benefits of the policy since the day of accident. The husband of the complainant informed the opposite parties about the above mentioned facts and fulfilled all the formalities required for the claim. The documents including the certificate of disability were submitted to the opposite parties. The opposite parties started paying monthly installments to the complainant but did not paid the claim amount and other benefits of the policy till date. Then an official of the opposite parties came to the house of the complainant and asked to thumb mark some papers saying that the claim shall be given within a few days. The complainant thumb marked the papers as told by the above official of the opposite parties. Then the complainant received a letter dated 14/5/2005 from the opposite parties along with two cheque for Rs.417/-. The husband of the complainant Sh. Tulsi Ram got this letter explained from an agent of the opposite parties who told that the claim of the policy had been fully settled. The complainant and her husband were astonished at this revelation as the opposite parties had not paid the claim amount. Then the husband of the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 and each time the opposite party No. 1 put off the complainant's husband on one pretext or the other and finally a few days ago flatly declined to any claim pertaining to the above referred policy. It is clear cut deficiency on the part of the opposite parties not to pay the full claim and other benefits of the policy. The complainant and her husband had to face inconvenience, harassment and mental agony on account of deficiency in service of the opposite parties for which the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and to pay costs of the complaint. Hence the present complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 26-10-2006 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of notice the opposite parties appeared through Sh. Lakhwinder Singh Advocate and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form because as per terms and conditions of the policy, the sum assured is to be paid only on the date of maturity or on death which ever occurs earlier. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits it is submitted that quarterly installment/premium was Rs.507/- and in case of death or permanent disability, there was no need to pay the premium from the date of death/ disability. It is wrong that sum assured is payable on the date of disability, rather as per terms and conditions of the policy the sum assured is to be paid only on the date of maturity or on death which ever occurs earlier. The monthly installments is to be paid to the complainant for 10 years which have been regularly paid by the opposite parties i.e the opposite parties paid the installment worth Rs.417/- P.M. to the complainant from the date of its disability for ten years as per terms of the policy. Moreover the complainant is not entitled for the sum assured at this stage as per the terms and conditions of the policy in this case, as the same is to be pay after the date of death or on maturity of the policy i.e. after 17/1/2019 as the date of maturity of the policy in this case is 17/1/2019. The complainant has filed this false complaint on false and baseless and misconceived facts, so the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The sum assured is to be paid to the complainant after the date of maturity i.e after 17/1/2019. It is correct that monthly installments were started to be paid to the complainant. The complainant is not entitled for claim amount before the date of maturity i.e. 17/1/2019 as per terms and conditions of the policy. It is wrong that any official of the opposite parties ever visited the house of the complainant or that assured the complainant for making any payment of claim amount neither took any thumb marks on any paper as alleged. The permanent disability equal to the sum assured have been paid to the complainant by the opposite parties and nothing remains due to the opposite parties out of the said benefits. However the amount of sum assured Rs.50,000/- will be paid to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy in this case, after the date of maturity of this policy i.e. 17/1/2019. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, so the complaint be dismissed with costs. <br /> 5. All the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, photocopy of insurance policy Ex.C-2, photocopy of form No. 5280 Ex.C-3, photocopies of receipts Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-16 and closed her evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of S.L.Dhupar Manager Ex.R-1, copy of policy Ex.R-2, affidavit of Satya Badhan Manager Claims Ex.R-3, copy of policy Ex.R-4, copy of endorsement Ex.R-5, copy of proposal form Ex.R-6, copies of documents regarding payments made to the complainant regarding permanent disability of the insured Ex.R-7 to Ex.R-139 and closed their evidence. <br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 8. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the opposite parties have not made payment of insurance amount of Rs.50,000/- against the claim policy No. 130759434. The complainant is entitled to the same alongwith compensation and costs of Rs.20,000/-.<br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that it is a case of accidental disability accordingly as per the policy the equal installments/premium of Rs.507/-is not being received from the complainant rather a sum of Rs.417/- per month is being paid to the complainant by the opposite parties which is to be paid for 10 years and after maturity the amount of Rs.50,000/- also shall be paid alongwith the bonus. <br /> 10. From the perusal of the file it is made out that there is no dispute with regard to existence of insurance policy and disability caused to the complainant in an accident. <br /> 11. From the perusal of the affidavit Ex.R-1 of Sh. S.L.Dhupar LIC Divisional Office Jallandhar and the documents Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-139 are going to show that complainant is being paid monthly installment of Rs.417/- which is to be paid for 10 years. No premium of Rs.507/- is being received from the complainant by the opposite parties quarterly which as per the policy Ex.R-2 was required to be paid by the complainant to the opposite parties in case she would not have met with an accident. As per the insurance policy Ex.C-2 the assured amount is payable on stipulated date of maturity if the life assured is then alive or at his death if earlier. The accidental benefit as per clause 10 of the policy Ex.C-2 on disability to the life assured enables the disable to get paid in monthly installments spread over 10 years an additional sum equal to the sum assured under this policy. If the policy becomes a claim before expiry the said period of 10 years the disability benefit installments which have not fallen due will be paid alongwith the claim to waive the payment of the future premiums. From the above noted facts it is clear that the opposite parties are complying with provisions of LIC policy Ex.C-2 and rules and regulations applicable thereof. The complainant virtually wants double payment immediately which is not permissible as per the provisions of the policy in question. So there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. So United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus M/s Pushpalaya Printers 1 (2004) CPJ-22 (SC) is not helpful to the complainant as there are no interpretations out of which beneficial is to be accepted in favour of insured. The words and documents in the policy mentioned above are not ambiguous. So construing the provisions of the policy against the opposite parties is not available for the complainant. So this authority is not helpful to the complainant in any manner as the provisions of the policy are prima facie clear that there is no double interpretations involved in this case. <br /> 12. In view of these facts and circumstances it is held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. So the complaint filed by the complainant being devoid of merits is dismissed. There is no order as to costs due to peculiar circumstances of the case. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.<br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 14/6/2007<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. H.L.Mittal) (Smt. D.K.Khosa) (Dharam Singh)<br /> Member Member President