KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL.NO.348/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 29.7.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER Br anch Manager, LIC of India, : APPELLANT Alathur, rep. by the Manager(Legal & HPF), LIC of India, Divisional Office, Ernakulam, Duly authorized and empowered to represent the appellant. (By Adv.G.S.Kalkura) Vs. A.Velayudhan, S/o late Appukuttan, : RESPONDENT Badratha, Valayil House, Nelliampadam, Paruvassery.P.O., PAlakkad. (By Adv.C.Raghavan) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/ LIC of India in CC.114/06 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The appellant is under orders to pay of sum of Rs.15,554/- and Rs.28,126/- each with respect to the 2 policies. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had taken 3 LIC policies which had covered accident benefit in case of permanent disability caused in any accident. It is the case of the complainant that during the period of policy coverage he met with an accident on 13.10.2003 and sustained compound fracture to the right leg. He underwent treatment at Elite Mission hospital, Thrissur and subsequently that complainant was taken to Ganga hospital, Coimbatore and thereon his right leg was amputated below knee. Since he sustained permanent disability he applied for the benefits. It is submitted that since the date of the accident he was hospitalised and underwent inpatient treatment for various periods upto 29.1.2004. Thereafter also he continued treatment as an outpatient. He could not move without others help. Hence he could not intimate the LIC immediately. Permanent disability has been assessed as 70%. The claim was rejected alleging delay in intimating the LIC about the incident. 3. The opposite parties has contended that intimation was given only vide his letter dated 8.2.05 while the incident has taken place on 13.10.03. There is a delay on more one year and 3 months in informing the opposite party whereas as per the policy condition the matter ought to have been intimated immediately and within 120 days the proof of disability etc should have been submitted. It was in the above circumstances that the claim could not be allowed. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit of the complainant and Exts.A1 to A9 and B1 to B4. 5. We find that the only contention of the opposite party/appellant is that there is inordinate delay in giving intimation and submitting the claim. It is noted by the Forum that the complainant has also mentioned that after the incident his brother also met with an accident and was under treatment at the Jubily Mission Medical College Hospital at Thrissur. The appellants has not disputed the incident or the fact of the amputation of the right leg of the complainant. In the circumstances we find that placing reliance strictly on the terms of the policy with respect to the immediate intimation is not just in the circumstances. Hence we find that there is no scope for interference in the order of the Forum. The order of the Forum is sustained. The complainant would also be entitled for interest at 9% from the date of the order of the Forum ie, on 30.7.07. The appellant/opposite party is directed to make the payment within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which the complainant would be entitled for interest at 12% from today. In the result the appeal is dismissed as above. Office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with the copy of this order. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER ps | 
