Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents on admission. The factual backgrounds are that deceased Manohar had secured personal loan of Rs.14,000/- from respondent No.2. At the time of securing loan, deceased was also covered by “SBI Life Super-Suraksha” Group Scheme, Master Policy. However as ill luck would have it, insured died on 30.1.2006, pursuant to which petitioner being nominee in the scheme lodged claim for payment of Rs.2 lakhs and also for refund of excess recovery of Rs.7,903/- alongwith interest. The claim was repudiated by SBI Life -2- Insurance Company, taking recourse to stipulations made in the scheme, which restricts that lower of the two shall be payable. The sum assured has been defined in Schedule-I, which would in the following terms:- “a) In the case of PPI Cover (PPI Sum Assured) the lower of: i) the amount outstanding for that Member and ii) Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only”) (Applicable for Members on or after January 15, 2003 but before November 1, 2003) or the lower of i) the amount outstanding for that Member, and ii) Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs only) (Applicable for members joining on or after November 1, 2003 or the lower of i) the amount Outstanding for that member and ii) Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs fifty thousand only) (Applicable for Category “A” Customers only with effect from January 15, 2004) However, District Forum having overruled contentions raised on behalf of respondent while accepting claim of the complainant directed SBI Life Insurance Company to make payment of Rs.2 lakhs alongwith interest. When matter was carried in appeal by respondent No.1, State Commission having appreciated niceties of the stipulations made in the clause (schedule), -3- which restricts admissibility of claim to a lower of the two, set aside the order of the District Forum and allowed appeal. Contentions are raised on behalf of petitioner that when options are available in the scheme, expression of word “Or” should mean “And” and literal interpretation of word “Or” occurring in definition should not be given and since deceased has joined Master Policy after 2003, he was entitled for Rs.2 lakhs. Having considered contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and interpretation of the schedule made by the State Commission which restricts liability of the Insurance Company to pay residual loan of Rs.11,187/- only to the petitioner, I am of the view that State Commission had rightly assigned logical interpretation to the policy and no infirmity had crept in its order. In the circumstances there being no merit in the revision petition, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.