K.V.Krishna Murthy:   

            The complainant herein had filed a complaint case in C.C. No. 36/2011 on 20-09-2011, which came to be dismissed by this Forum on
20-06-2012 after contest.  The judgment in the said case runs 12 pages containing 29 paragraphs.  Paragraph 26 & 29 of the judgment reads thus;

26.  From the above analysis of the facts of the case, in escapable conclusion is that the disability suffered by the policy holder is about 50% of the right leg only and not for the entire body and is only a partial disability.  So the policy holder is not eligible for accident disability benefit in terms of the conditions in the policies as the disability though permanent not total and such that he is unable to pursue or follow-up agriculture resulting in inability to earn his profit for livelihood.  The consequence of the accident only diminished his income as he has to spend more for agricultural operations.

29.  In view of the discussion hereinabove, the claim for entitlement for accidental disability benefit by the policy holder is rejected.  Complaint stands dismissed.

2.  In paragraph – 27 & 28 of the said judgment, this Forum also referred to the contention of the LIC to the effect that the complaint is premature and no deficiency in service as pleaded in paragraph – 5 of the written version.  In this regard this Forum expressed the view as follows;

27.  x x x x x x x x x x x, the LIC contended that the complaint is premature and no deficiency in service in condition No. 11 (a).  Condition No. 11(a), Para - 6 provides that – Immediately after happening of the disability, full particulars thereof must be given in writing to the office of the Corporation where the policy is serviced together with the then address and whereabouts of the Life Assured and within 180 days after the happening of the disability there must be given to the servicing office of the Corporation in the manner required by it proof of disability satisfactory to the Corporation and without any expense to the Corporation and thereafter similar proof must be given as and when required by the Corporation of the continuance of such disability. Any medical Examiner nominated by the Corporation shall be allowed to examine the Life Assured in respect of any disability claimed in such manner and at such times before and or after the disability is accepted by the corporation as the Corporation may require.

28.  Above condition has not been complied-with by the complainant.  Nevertheless the LIC could not absolved from deciding the claim atleast after filing of this complaint on 20-9-2011 because all the documents were made available in this file.   The consequence of not giving the intimation within the time stipulated will not vanish the entitlement if any of a policy holder. A consumer complaint cannot be thrown out on such technicalities, particularly so in this case because the fixed accident benefit amount is mentioned under the policies in question.  Only entitlement claimed is to be decided and that has been done now by this Forum.  Therefore the contention in Paragraph – 6 of the written version is rejected.

            3.  Aggrieved by dismissal of the complaint by this Forum, the complainant filed an Appeal No. 1468/2012 on 24-07-2012 challenging the dismissal of his claim for compensation;

            4.  Order in Appeal No. 1468/2012 dated: 06-8-2012 reads as follows;

“We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on Admission – perused the observation made by the DF in para 27 & 28 which clearly indicates that the complaint filed by the complainant has not made any claim application for disability before the OP within the stipulated period.  Even then complainant will not lose right rights to claim compensation.  A consumer complaint cannot be thrown out on such technicalities, particularly so in this case because the fixed accident benefit amount is mentioned under the policies in question.  The appellant herein also justified the fracture is 49% permanent partial disability.  Considering the observation made by the DF that the appellant/complainant is at liberty to submit his claim before the respondent for grant of compensation in accordance with law within 30 days from the date of this order.”

            5.  The State Commission therefore permitted the complainant to submit the claim before the LIC for grant of compensation within 30 days of the order.  It appears the complainant has approached the LIC again.

            6.  LIC rejected the disability benefit claim as per repudiation letter dated: 01-2-2014, which reads as under;

“with regard to your claim for Disability Benefits under the above policies we wish to inform your as below;

Conditions for admissibility of Disability Benefit are:

If at any time when this policy is in force for the full Sum Assured, the Life Assured before the expiry of the period for which the premium is payable or before the policy anniversary on which the age Nearer birthday of the Life Assured is 70, whichever is earlier, is involved in accident resulting in Permanent Disability as defined hereinafter and the same is proved to the satisfaction of the Corporation, then Disability benefit is payable.

Disability must be total and permanent and as a result of accident and occur within 180 days of Date of Accident.

1. Loss of sight in both eyes, OR
2. Amputation of both hands at or above the wrists, OR
3. Amputation of both feet at or above ankles, OR
4. Amputation of one hand at or above the wrist and one foot at or above the ankle.

But your case does not satisfy any of the above four types.  Competent authority has rejected your claim for Disability Benefit under your both the policies.

            7.  The complainant therefore approached this Forum again on
18-3-2014: This is how this claim has came-up for decision before this Forum again.

            8.  Section – 24 of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986 reads as follows;

“24. Finality of orders – Every order of a District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall, if no appeal has been preferred against such order under the provisions of this Act, be final.”           

            9.  In the case under consideration, this Forum has not dismissed the claim on the ground; the complainant has not filed the claim-form.  On the other hand, this Forum has rejected the defence contention on this aspect of the matter having regard to the policy condition and observations in paragraph – 27 & 28 referred herein above.

            10.  The order of this Forum has not ben set-aside by the  Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in the appeal filed by the complainant.  The State Commission has not stated that any of the observation of the Forum are incorrect.  Therefore the order of this Forum has reached the finality after the expiry of 30 days period from the date of the order of the State Commission dated:
06-8-2012 because the appellant has not filed any Revision Petition against the order of the State Commission not allowing his appeal.  As such, the decision in the dispute cannot be re-opened unless provided u/sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986.

            11.  In the peculiar circumstances stated above, we cannot change our view which we have expressed in C.C. No. 36/2011 on detail analysis of the facts and law relevant to the case.  Therefore we repeat the same once again in this order.

1. An unfortunate accident occurred on
13-10-2009 while the complainant was riding a motorbike against which a tempo-trax dashed resulting in grievous injuries to the complainant.  Bevoor Police have registered a case in Crime No. 91/2009 and after investigation a charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Yelaburga for the offence punishable u/Sec. 279, 337 & 338 of IPC.   The wound certificate produced in the criminal court is marked as Ex.A20 dated: 14-11-2009 which discloses that Fracture Shaft right femur and fracture of both bones of right leg.  The injured was treated as inpatient in KIMS Hospital, Hubli from 14-10-2009 to 05-11-2009.  Ex.A6 is a certificate dated: 27-9-2010 wherein it is mentioned that an old comminuted fracture of right proximal tibia was noticed.  The injured had 50% permanent physical impairment to the right lower limb.  On 23-1-2012 this Forum directed the complainant to be examined by a Medical officer at the choice of the LIC for examination of life assured and Dr.Vishwanath Dipali of Hospet was nominated, who examined the injured on 04-4-2012, issued the disability certificate stating that the complainant was found to have total permanent disability of 49% to the right leg(?). The complainant filed a claim for compensation in MVC Case No. 511/2010 before the MACT, Kushtagi, which claim was settled as compromised on 18-11-2011, under which the complainant herein received .1,20,000/- as compensation for the physical impairment sustained by him.  Before this Forum, affidavit evidence of Dr.R.Madhuchandra of KIMS Hospital, Hubli has been filed on 22-11-2011.  In Paragraph – 3 of this affidavit evidence, it is stated that there is a shortening of leg to a small extent.  The certificate issued on 27-9-2010 do not disclose the shortening of the right leg of the complainant.

         2.  The complainant is a policy holder of LIC’s New Bhima Gold policy as per Ex.A1 & A2, details of which are not in dispute.

3.  On 06-8-2011 a notice through an advocate was issued to the LIC demanding issue of claim form and if not the same notice be treated as claim-form.

4.  The reply dated: 19-8-2011 was issued by the LIC.  No intimation for disability benefit from policy holder has been received and on receipt of the intimation from the policy holder action will be taken. 

5.  This complaint was filed in this Forum on 20-9-2011 seeking for the compensation under the following heads;

   i. Accident benefit of first policy       -   Rs.   50,000/-

  ii. Accident benefit of second policy     -  Rs. 1,20,000/-

iii. Compensation towards physical &

       Mental agony                                -   Rs.  80,000/-

  iv. Compensation towards deficiency

        in service                                     -     Rs. 40,000/-

v.  Cost of the case & other expenses  -    Rs.  10,000/-

                                      TOTAL        -  Rs. 3,00,000/-

6.  Disputing the deficiency in service alleged in the complaint, the LIC denies its liability to pay accident disability benefit claim in terms of policy also denying the maintainability of the claim on the ground of premature.

7.  Accident benefit option has been exercised by the policy holder and therefore condition No.11 of ‘Conditions & Privileges’ will apply for an amount equal to the accident benefit riders sum assured.  Clause (a) of Condition No. 11 eals with Disability to the Life assured.  This clause compromises of six paragraphs. 

8.  Fifth paragraph, which is most relevant for consideration that comprises of two sentences.  For convenience, the second sentence will be noticed for the first instance, which reads as follows;

“Accidental injuries which independently of all other causes and within 120 days from the happening of such accident, result in the irrecoverable loss of the entire sight of both eyes or in the amputation of the both hands at or above the wrists, or in the amputation of both feet at or above ankles, or in the amputation of one hand at or above the wrist and one foot at or above the ankle, shall be deemed to constitute such disability.

9.  The above sentence deals with accidental injuries resulting in loss of limbs and such loss of limb is also deemed to constitute permanent disability.  It is a deeming provision, where capacity to earn is not required to be considered. 

10.  In the instant case, there is no amputation or loss of sight, which is referred to in the above clause of the fifth paragraph of condition No.11.  Therefore this is not applicable to the complainant. 

11.  Now the first sentence of fifth paragraph will be relevant to be noticed, which reads thus;

“The disability above referred to must be disability which is the result of an accident and must be total and permanent and such that there is neither then nor at any time thereafter any work, occupation or profession that the Life Assured can ever sufficiently do or follow to earn or obtain any wages, compensation or profit.”

13.  Disability arising out of the accident is always a sufferance to the injured.  Therefore compensation is being awarded to the injured person under provision of Motor Vehicle Act.   The complainant herein made a claim for compensation before the MACT, Kushtagi and satisfied with receipt of Rs.  1,20,000/- as compensation towards the claim.  In this complaint, the claim is for entitlement of accident benefit in terms of policy conditions.  Therefore this Forum can allow payment of accident benefit if and only if the complainant proves total and permanent disability such that at the time of accident or at any time thereafter the life assured can ever sufficiently do or follow to earn compensation or obtain any profit etc.,

14.   In the case of LIC V/s Khazan Singh – 2010 CTJ 386 (CP) (NCDRC), the decision in LIC V/s Rameshchandra – 1997 CTJ 585 (CP) and LIC V/s Satpal Khasyap in RP No. 3122 of 2003 dated: 15.5.2008 have been followed in Paragraph 8 & 9 of this decision, the National Commission observed thus;

“8.  In Ramesh Chandra’s case (Supra), a 4 Member Bench of this Commission after taking into consideration of similar clause, held as under;-

“5. The question is whether the amputation of right hand suffered by the complainant is a specified event and constitute disability entitled to an accident benefit under Clause 10(a) of the policy bond.  The accident benefit is available to the assured only if he is involved in an accident resulting in total and permanent disability as defined in Clause 10.  The disability referred in the said clause must be disability which is the result of accident and must be total and permanent.  The accidental injuries which independently of all other causes and within 120 days from happening of such accident result in the irrecoverable loss of the entire sight of both eyes or in the amputation of both hands at or above wrists or in the amputation of feet at or above ankles, or in the amputation of one hand at or above the wrist and one foot at or above the ankle only constitute such disability.  The case of the complainant is not of the amputation of both the hands at or above the wrist or in the computation of feet at or above ankles.  The case of the complainant is the amputation of one hand at or above the wrist but that is not independently deemed to be a disability as is covered since the coverage in the clause is only in cases of amputation of one hand at or above the wrist and one foot at or above ankle.  It bears repetition that the deeming clause constituting the disability will get attracted only if there was the amputation of one hand at or above the wrist and one foot at or above the ankle.  If it is the amputation of one hand at or above wrist or the amputation of one foot at or above the ankle, then it does not by the fiction of the Clause 10(a) constitute disability.  The constitution of the policy bond which is the basis of the contract of insurance is a question of law and its true and correct interpretation would give justification to the Fora to pronounce upon the deficiency in service, if any.  The District Forum as well as the State Commission had no jurisdiction to go beyond the terms and conditions of the policy bond and could only order the payment of the disability benefit if it was specified event covered under Clause 10 of the conditions of policy.  The amputation of only one hand does not fall within the deeming definition constituting disability in terms of Clause 10(a) of the policy bond and thus the impugned orders suffer from serious illegalities.” (Emphasis supplied)

“9.  To the similar effect is the judgment of this Commission in Satpak Kashyap Mittal’s case (Supra) wherein after taking into consideration the same Clause as in the present case, it was held as under:

“Bare reading of the above clause would show that on the life assured’s suffering from permanent disability as a result of an accident, the Insurance Company subject to a ceiling of Rs.1,00,000/- will pay additional sum equal to the sum assured under a policy in monthly installments spread over 10 years and if the policy becomes a claim before the expiry of this period the benefit installments which have not fallen due will be paid along with the claim and future payment of premiums will be waived.  Permanent disability consists of loss of entire sight of both eyes or amputation of both the hands at or above the wrists or amputation of one hand at or above the wrist and one foot at or above the ankle.  Policy is a contract and the conditions thereof are binding on both the parties.  Obviously, loss of sight of one eye suffered by Sat Pal Kashyap – life assured can not be treated as a permanent disability within the meaning of the said clause.  Assuming that it is a permanent disability Shri Kashyap was entitled to the additional amount of disability benefit of Rs.1,00,000/- and not Rs.1,25,000/-.  Decision in Ramesh Chandra’s case (Supra) which was rendered with reference to similar clause 10(a) of the policy applied on all fours to this case.  Order of District Forum as affirmed by the State Commission, thus, deserve to be set aside being legally erroneous.”  (Emphasis supplied).

15.  In the case under consideration before us, the complainant is a 48 years’ old agriculturist having 4 acre 4 gunta’s of land situated in Sy.No. 19 at Muradi village in Yelburga taluk.  Col.No.10 of the RTC extract, Ex.A7 discloses that the complainant got this property in the family partition dated: 19-2-2010.  Co.No.12 of the RTC extract discloses that the complainant has cultivated this land for the Kharif and Rabi crops during 2010–11.  Name of the crops grown not mentioned.  The RTC do not disclose any irrigation facility.  Yelburga is one amongst most backward taluks in Karnataka having short rainfall.  Main crop in Yelabur taluk is Jawar and horsegram, which are seasonal crops for three months.  The income from agricultural depends upon soil fertility, cultivation methods, vagarious of nature, market, fluctuation etc., etc., As such agricultural income in uncertain.  

16.  The complainant has not stated in the complaint or in his affidavit evidence what was his income from agriculture and how much is the extent of loss of earning from the agriculture.  The complainant owns 4 acres, 4 guntas of land and still cultivating the same.  On account of the disability, it may not be able to personally work in the filed, but certainly he can pursue the agricultural activity by engaging agricultural labourers.  The complainant alone cannot have worked in the field measuring 4 acres, 4 guntas to earn agricultural income even if he is physically fit in all aspects.  At the most, the loss of profit or earning compensation is only to certain extent of his manual work and not more.  The complainant has not stated the types of crops he grown and he is now growing.  It is common knowledge that the income from dry crops like Jawar, Horsegram is very low.  As such the quantum of loss of profit will also be low.  The complainant’s wife has also filed her affidavit evidence.  Her evidence is not of much help to assess the loss of profit from agriculture.  A cursory look at the photograph of the complainant vide Ex.A16 discloses that the complainant is not incapable of doing any work.  The evidence of the complainant’s wife Smt. Hawalavva discloses that she had 8 children.  So the complainant can carry out agriculture operations with the assistance of all those persons.  Therefore it is not possible to conclude that there is total loss of earning of the profit from the agricultural income. 

17.  In the decision in LIC V/s Khazan Singh – 2010 CTJ – 386 (CP) (NCDRC) (Supra), the respondent got several injuries on his body and lost one of his ear and became deaf and his one hand and one leg were broken and also suffered head injuries due to which he became permanently handicap.  Although he produced the permanent disability certificate issued by doctor, this claim was repudiated by the LIC.   The National Commission held that the respondent had not suffered permanent disability entitling him to claim the amount under the policy. 

18.  Placing reliance upon the decision in LIC of India & Anr., V/s K.Narasimulu – 2011 CTJ 270 (CP) (NCDRC), counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is entitled for compensation.  In the said decision, the complainant therein was working on the crane and he met with an accident resulting serious injuries including to his spinal cord because of which he suffered decreased sensation and his movements became restricted and impaired.  Despite two operations the respondents ability to work and earn could not be restored and being fully disables he was forced to take voluntary retirement.  Everybody agrees that in such situation every workman forced to take voluntary retirement.  The loss of earning was total and the nature of injury suffered by him was permanent.  The facts of the case on hand are different.  The complainant is not a workman, who is totally disabled now from earning is income from agriculture.  The complainant’s earning to his livelihood by agriculture and the accident has not rendered him unfit from the agriculture as his occupation.

          19.  The next decision relied upon by the counsel for the complainant is that Appeal No. 1224/2010, DD: 30-8-2011.  In the said case, the complainant was tailor and he suffered 49% permanent partial disability to the left leg alone has resulted totally incapable to doing his profession to earn his livelihood from tailoring work.  Such is not the case before the Forum now. 

          20.  In the case of LIC V/s Ram Singh Tanwar – I (2007) CPJ 48 (NC), the complainant was working as driver and when he was driving a truck, he met with an accident and thereafter his right let was required to be amputated.  So that he may survive and became unfit for driving the vehicle.  In the said circumstances, the National Commission held that the complainant can not be said to be sufficiently do the said work of driving in getting his livelihood or to obtain any wages or profit by doing the said job.  The facts of present case can be distinguished.  The said decision is not applicable as there is no amputation of any limb resulting in pursuing the agriculture.

21.  Another decision in Appeal No. 2375/2007,    DD:    27-2-2008 has also been cited where the percentage of disability was assessed at 25%.  The State Commission observed that the Dr.C.B.Chiniwal has given report stating that the complainant, a Police Constable has got a permanent physical disability to his right lower limb.  In that case, the final diagnosis and certificate was delayed union of fracture of M/3^rd (R) Femur with IMIL Nail in Situ and he was advised to do light work more of clerical work.  This was held to be a virtually total disability and not partial.  The police constable continued in the State Service with no loss of earning.  This legal aspect has not been considered and decided.  Therefore the said decision do not lay down the correct law on the point involved in this case.    

          22.  In the decision in National Insurance Company v/s Guntaka Subbareddy – 2012 (1) CCC 52 (NS), the policy holder has lost vision of his right eye completely and the disability assessed at 30%.  But it was held that the loss of one eye would be referring to total and irrecoverable loss with reference to the clause No. 3 (b)(1) in the Personal Accident Policy.  The facts of the present case are different.  Such a clause is not applicable to the policy holder in this case.

23.  Counsel for the LIC relied upon the following decisions in support of its contention;

1. LIC of India V/s D.K.Panchal – Order dtd: 14.8.2002.
2. R.P. No. 813/2007, order dated: 12-7-2011 – Bal Krishna Mishra V/s LIC of India & Ors.,
3. R.P. No. 2741/2007, order dated: 12-09-2011 – LIC of India V/s Shri Somashekharachari

In the first two mentioned cases above, the disability percentage was about 50%.  But the National Commission held that there was no permanent disability.  Now in the instant case also, the disability is not more-than 50% of the right let even if the opinion of the Dr. Madhuchandra is accepted.

24.  In the decision in Kota Open University V/s Smt. Raj Kumari Yadav – 2010 CTJ 412 (CP) (NCDRC), it has been held as follows;

“The policy of courts is to stand by precedent and not to disturb settled issue.  This is a principle based on judicial comity requiring adjudicating authority to follow precedents of courts of coordinate jurisdiction and of superior jurisdiction.

25.  In view of the above observations, the decision of the National Commission cited above in the earlier part of this order will be followed.           

12.  Coming to the case on hand, counsel for the complainant has relied upon the following decisions, which requires tobe considered;

1. II (2014) CPJ 276 (NC) – LIC of India & Anr., V/s
   Sri Hari.

1. 2011 (3) CPR 107 (NC) – LIC of India & Ors., V/s Mahendra Singh.

13.  In the first mentioned decision, the complainant was a tailor by profession, who suffered fracture by the accident required implant of rod as a consequences of that accident to has been medically advised not to work on foot paddle tailoring machine because of endanger of left leg, in that context the decision was rendered. In paragraph – 13 of the  decision,  the National Commission observed as follows;

“13. The petitioner is trying to justify the repudiation of insurance claim in view of Clause III of Disability Benefit clause which is reproduced thus:

“(iii) Disability should be such that, there is neither then nor at any time thereafter any work, occupation or profession that, the life assured can every sufficiently do not follow to earn any wages, compensation or profits.”

On reading of the above, it is evident that insured can take advantage of Disability Certificate only if he has suffered disability which renders him incapable of any work, occupation or profession he could ever sufficiently do to earn wages, compensation or profits.  The words “life assured can ever sufficiently do or follow to earn wages, compensation or profits” are significant.  In our considered view, the user of the aforesaid words clearly indicate the intention that the work should be of such a nature for which the insured has necessary proficiency.  The insured admittedly was a tailor and had sufficient working knowledge of that profession.  Due to the injury suffered by him, he cannot work on foot pedal tailor machine.  He cannot be expected to work as a labour or house keeper, etc. If such an interpretation is given to this provision, then nobody would be able to get benefit of the accident benefit clause because the insurer would always come up with the plea that a person can do some cleaning work job or other menial job.  Therefore, it can be safely concluded that because of the injury sustained, the insured cannot sufficiently follow his occupation to earn wages, compensation or profit.  Thus, in our view the complainant who has suffered 49% permanent disability fulfils a pre-condition to avail of the accident clause.  As such, we do not find fault with the orders of the Foras below allowing the complaint and awarding the compensation to the complainant.” 

            The facts under which the said observation was made do not applicable to the facts of the present case.  Each case has to be decided on the fact of that particular case.  In this decision, the National Commission held that the disability suffered fulfills a pre-condition to avail the accident clause.  We are rejecting the claim on the ground the pre-condition to avail the disability benefit not fulfilled.   

            14.  In the second mentioned decision, the complainant therein suffered paralytic stroke resulting into complete and permanent disability.  In this connection, the National Commission observed as under:

“10. Hemiplegia means that one side of a person’s body has been paralyzed; meaning thereby that one leg, one hand and further perhaps the hearing capacity of same side of the ear and the power of vision on that side of the eye also have suffered disability.  Thus, there is no manner of doubt that the respondent/complainant has suffered permanent disability of at least two limbs i.e., one hand and one leg if not more resulting from the paralytic stroke.  What is, however, surprising is that both the petitioner/opposite party/Insurance Corporation as well as the District Forum had relief upon the aggregate percentage of disability which is stated to be above 40% negating the effect of permanent disability of the two limbs.  Only to be noted that the terms of the policy does not refer to any percentage of disability.  It’s only requirements are that the paralytic stroke suffered by the Life Assured should result into complete and permanent disability of two or more limbs.  Thus, both the petitioner/opposite party/Insurance Corporation as well as the District Forum ought not to have travelled beyond this specified term of the policy in rejecting the claim of the respondent/complainant.  Whether the percentage of disability suffered and the ability of the respondent/complainant to have rejoined his duty would have absolutely no relevance to the contract.  The terms of the policy are in the nature of a contract and their interpretation has to be made in accordance with the strict construction of the contract.  Thus, the words in an insurance contract must be given paramount importance and interpreted as expressed without any addition, deletion or substitution.  The law in this regard is very well settled and one may conveniently refer to a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suraj Mal Ral Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd., V. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,  Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that the repudiation of the claim by the petitioner/opposite party/Insurance Corporation was not at all justified and the view taken by the District Forum was not sustainable.”

            15.  In the instant case also, percentage of disability is not important but the policy conditions are of paramount importance.  In the said decision clause (IV) of condition No. 11(b) was applicable and hence claim was allowed.  In this case, the complainant has not suffered paralytic stroke.  So the decision is of no use to allow the claim. 

16.  The reasons assigned in paragraph 8 – 25 to negative the claim of the complainant in C.C. No. 36/2011 holds good even now as the State Commission has not taken a different view nor reversed the view of this Forum.

            17.  The Forum has adjudicated the claim having necessary documents made available on both sides and therefore the decision reported in II (2014) CPJ – 655 (NC) – Dabur India Ltd., V/s Harpreet Singh Oberoi & Ors., relied by counsel for the complainant is of no help.

18.  We also gone through the contents of the repudiation letter, mentioning the grounds for repudiation.  In the instant case, there is no loss of sight or amputation of any parts.  Hence, admissibility of the benefit of the disability benefit under the policy in under question do not exists.  Therefore, the LIC is justified in repudiating the claim.  Consequently, this complaint is dismissed.