Complainant’s mother Smt. Konchada Savitramma had invested in fully paid up Sahara 10 of denomination of Rs.10,000/- each on 05.8.1998 till hear death in the year 2002.  After her death, respondents, who were her nominees, submitted a claim along with

-2-

the relevant papers for payment of amount as per the terms and conditions of the scheme.  As per the terms and conditions of the Scheme, petitioner was supposed to pay Rs.10,000/- for 120 months.  Petitioner paid the first installment to the respondents and, thereafter, stopped the same.  Inspite of repeated requests, petitioner did not pay the amount.  Aggrieved by this, respondents filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint vide its order dated 04.9.2006 and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.3,60,000/- for the period from August 2002 to July 2005 and, thereafter, continue to pay the sum of Rs.10,000/- for another 36 months to complete the period of 120 months.

          Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission modified the order in the following terms:

“The appellants/opposite parties are directed to pay the death help to the respondents/complainant as contemplated under the bond Ex.B1 commencing from September, 2002 till date i.e. upto July 2009 (i.e.

for 83 months) with interest at 9% p.a. within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and the remaining 37 installments regularly for the remaining period without any interest thereon.  In the circumstances each party to bear their own costs.”

          Being aggrieved present revision petition has been filed.

          Clause 9 prescribes the following pre-requisites for advancing the death help facility:

(a)             The age of the deceased bond Holder was between                                      16-60 years at the time of death.

(b)             The death of the Bond Holder occurs after 12 months (365 days) from the date of purchasing the Bonds.

(c)             The deceased Bond holder was not suffering from any chronic/fatal disease within 3 years from the time of purchasing the Bond(s).  The nominee(s) of the deceased Bond Holder shall produce authentic, convincing documentary proof in this regard, along with birth certificate and proof of death of the Bond Holder to the satisfaction of the Company.

(d)             The death of the Bond Holder did not occur due to suicide or death punishment by the Court of Law.

(e)             The death of the Bond Holder did not occur due to communal violence or war.”

            Relying upon the Sub-Clause C of Clause 9, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the deceased bond holder was suffering from chronic disease at the time of taking the policy and, therefore, her nominees were not entitled to the Death Health facility under the policy.  The word ‘Suffering From Any Disease Within Three Years From The Purchasing Of The Bond’ would mean that the deceased Bond Holder was suffering from disease three years prior to the taking of the policy.  There is no evidence to show that the deceased was suffering from any chronic disease within three years prior to the taking of Bonds in 1998.  The Medical Certificate produced on record shows that the deceased Bond Holder was suffering from chronic decease in the year 2002, but there is no evidence that she was suffering from the chronic decease three years prior to taking of the policy.  Hence, it cannot be held that the deceased Bond Holder was guilty of suppressing the information.  Revision petition is dismissed.  No costs.