RAJ KAUR vs LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 10.12.2007 passed by learned State Commission in First Appeal No. 137/2005, LIC of India v. Smt. Raj Kaur & Anr., by which while dismissing the appeal, order of District Forum was modified to some extent. Brief facts of the case are that Shri Satyavir, son of the complainant/petitioner was an employee of opposite party No. 2/respondent No. 2 and was insured under GSI scheme with the opposite party No. 1/respondent No. 1 along with other employees of opposite party No. 2 and was enrolled as a member of GSI Scheme for a sum of Rs. 75,000. Contributions were made by Shri Satyavir, who died on 9.4.1997. Claim was lodged but amount was not released and in such circumstances, alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite parties contested complaint. Opposite party No. 1 submitted that Shu Satyavir was on medical leave from 1.2.1997 to 22.2.1997 and became a member under the scheme on 22.2.1997, hence no amount was payable. It was further submitted that there was no column for nominee in the scheme and complainant is not entitled to receive any amount, hence complaint be dismissed. Opposite party No. 2 submitted that claim received from the complainant was duly forwarded to the office of opposite party No. 1 with a request to settle the matter expeditiously and intimation received from opposite party No. 1 was communicated to complainant and as such opposite party No. 2 has not committed any deficiency, hence complaint be dismissed.

LEARNED District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint against opposite party No. 1 and directed him to make payment of Rs. 75,000 to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 1.9.1997 till realization and cost of Rs. 2,000. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order but date of payment of interest was modified and it was ordered that payment shall be made from the date of order of the State Commission i.e. 10.12.2007 against which this revision petition has been filed. None appeared for the petitioner and respondent No. 2. Heard learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that revision petition is time barred and order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with the law, hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of record reveals that learned State Commission passed impugned order on 10.12.2007 and copy was issued on 18.1.2008 and as per Para 1 of the revision petition, copy was received by the petitioner on 8.2.2008 and revision petition has been filed on 5.5.2008 i.e. within period of 90 days. Hence, revision petition is not liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. As far as merits of the case are concerned, learned State Commission observed as under: "After according careful consideration to the nature of the scheme and the benefit, the deceased was entitled as a Member of GSI Group Insurance Scheme and the date on which the scheme was taken on 22.2.1997, and the ground of rejection on his being on leave on 1.2.1997 i.e. prior to 22.2.1997 because of some sickness does not make out case of rejection of the claim.

The very fact that respondent immediately joined duties and death took place in April, 1997 was also no ground for rejecting the claim. Merely on the date of scheme he was on leave because of some sickness did not disentitle him to reap the benefits of the death because death took place after many months.

The interpretation of clause of term particularly clause which are for the benefit of the consumer should be provided in a manner that it should promote object of the scheme and serve the interest of the consumer. If there are two interpretations possible particularly when the interpretations raised on such factual aspects as are in the instant case as to on what date the insured fell sick and from which disease he was suffering from and if he was suffering from such disease that resulted into death, interpretation in favour of consumer has to be adopted.

Foregoing reasons persuade us to dismiss the appeal with the modification that the interest shall be payable from the date of this order."

LEARNED State Commission took interpretation of the clause in favour of the petitioner though other interpretation of the clause could have been taken by learned State Commission as Shri Satyavir was on leave from 1.2.1997 to 22.2.1997 and became member under scheme only on 22.2.1997 and died on 9.4.1997. In such circumstances modification of date of interest by learned State Commission cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal or irregular. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.