KERALASTATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO:362/2003 JUDGMENT DATED:08..09..2009 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER Lekha Shaji, Hari Mandiram, Ruby Nagar, : APPELLANT Changanacherry, Kottayam. (By Adv: M/s B.Vijayakumar & K.Radhakrishnan) Vs. 1.M/s Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd., CentralPlaza, Vazhuthacaud, TVPM. : RESPONDENTS 2.The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office No:2, 2nd Floor, Gandhari Ammen Kovil Road, TVPM. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in OP:287/01 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. The matter relates to the accident insurance cover for Asianet subscribers. The 2nd opposite party/the insurer had paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner who is the wife of the deceased. The Forum has upheld the contention of the opposite parties that the amount that can be claimed is only Rs.1,00,000/- relying on clause 3 of the terms and conditions printed on the reverse of Ext.A1 insurance enrolment form. As per the above clause the policy is offered for four persons in the family, in the age group of 5 years to 70 years at the rate of 50,000/- per head. In the case of lesser number of persons, the subscriber may choose a combination of: i) One lakh for self and 50,000/- each for two members, OR ii) One lakh each for self and spouse, OR iii) Retain Rs.2.lakhs for self alone. OR 3. The above clause would show that if the family consisted of four persons the policy coverage can only be Rs.50,000/- per head. In case the family consisted of less than four members the subscriber can opt for any of the three combinations provided : ie, i) One lakh for self and 50,000/- each for two members, OR ii) One lakh each for self and spouse, OR iii) Retain Rs.2.lakhs for self alone. OR 4. The contention of the appellant/complainant is that she is entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- as in Ext.A1 enrolment form the deceased had opted for the third combination that is retain Rs.2,00,000/- for self alone. The counsel for the opposite parties have also produced the decision in Joe Joseph & Others V. K.C.Moideen 1996 (1) K.L.J.656 wherein the rule of interpretation is reiterated that the document must be read as whole for ascertaining the true effect of a recital. In the instant case we find that there is no scope for opting the 3rd combination as the family consisted of more than one person. There is no dispute that the family consisted of 3 eligible members and one infant. In the circumstances we find that there is no illegality in the order of the Forum. In the result the appeal is dismissed. JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER VL.
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA | | 
