Anu Mohanot vs BRANCH MANAGER LIC OF INDIA

SHRI S.R. Mehta filed this complaint before the State Commission on 3.4.91 against opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 & 3. A version of the case was filed on behalf of opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 & 3 raising objections regarding the locus standi of the complainant, Shri S.R. Mehta to file the complaint and the defect of non -joinder of L.I.C. of India. The application was submitted by the learned Counsel for the complainant on 9.3.92. Miss Anu Mahanot minor and Sidharth Mahanot, minor were impleaded as complainants through their Court guardian, Shri S.R. Mehta. L.I.C. of India was also impleaded as opposite party No. 4. The order impleading the complain ants and opposite party No. 4 was passed on 20.4.92. The amended cause title of the complainant was submitted on 9.3.92. Shri S.R. Mehta was appointed as guardian of the two minors, Anu Mahanot and Sidharth Mahanot by the District Judge, Bhilwara by order dated 27.11.87. They are minors. The father of the aforesaid two minor children Shri B.S. Mahanot submitted two proposals for two Life Insurance Policies for Rs. 50,000/ - each under Jeevan Mitra (Double Cover endowment plan) with accident benefits with Divisional Bench, Bhilwara (Rajasthan) (Opposite Party No. 1). That as a consideration for the said insurance policies, two cheques amounting to Rs. 3057.50 and Rs. 3910/ - being the first premium of each of the said two policies under plan No. 88 -20 and No. 88 -15 respectively were sent by Shri B.S. Mahanot, father of the minors and that both these cheques were duly accepted and encashed/credited in the account of the L.I.C. opposite party No. 4 (L.I.C.) issued policies Nos. 79364234 and 79364235 in the name of Shri Balde v Singh Mahanot (B.S. Mahanot). The sum assured of each of the policies was Rs. 50,000/ -. The premium was to be paid in the month of April each year. Shri B.S. Mahanot expired on 10.9.1986. Information was sent to the L.I.C. regarding the death of the policy holder, Shri B.S. Mahanot. The minor claimants. are the daughter and the son of the deceased Shri B.S. Mahanot and Mrs. Manju Mahanot. Grand father of the minor complainant -claimants expired on 14.2.85. Smt. Manju Mahanot, mother of the complainants claimants expired on 18.12.85. Grand mother (Mother of Shri B.S. Mahanot) expired on 27.3.86 and Mr. B.S. Mahanot expired on 10.9.1986. Grand father/Grand mother and mother of the claimants died within one year. The father of the claimants who have taken the policies died within 6 months of the death of his mother. It would be clear from the narration of the dates given above that the period from February, 1985 to March, 1986 was not unfortunate and said period for the family and in particular for the deceased father (Policy Holder) of the claimants for, Shri B.S. Mahanot not only lost his father and mother but also his wife during this period. The L.I.C. did not issue any notice before the death of the policy holder stating that any further premium was due and payable by him. Notice was of course issued after the death of the policy holder regarding premium payment. The cheques that were submitted were encashed by the LIC but B.S. Mahanot was not informed that he was required to pay any further amount. After the death of the policy holder Smt. Vimla Jalori who was the nominee lodged a claim on behalf of the minors. The LIC informed the nominee that the policies have lapsed as premium payable in April, 1986 has not been paid. At that time for the first time it transpired that the two policies were back dated and the deceased policy holder was required to pay two instalments at the time of the proposal. The L.I.C. issued the policies after excluding one years premium in May, 1986. Even at the time of issuing the two policies the deceased was not informed that he is required to pay another instalment because of back date policies. Even after the issuance of the two policies referred to above, no demand or reminder was received. The LIC issued premium notices for April, 1987 and April, 1988 despite the fact that due intimation had already been sent to the LIC that the policy holder Shri B.S. Mahanot had unfortunately died on September 10, 1986. The complainant has also alleged that the two policies under the Jeevan Mitra Scheme were issued. But the Jeevan Mitra Scheme itself was introduced in July, 1985. The complainant has set up the case that the L.I.C. could not give benefit of age so as to make the policies effective from April, 1985 when Jeevan Mitra Scheme was not in vogue. According to that clause giving the benefit of age from April, 1985 was under a mistake of fact on the part of the L.I.C. and the deceased policy holder and thus of no effect. Shri S.R. Mehta requested the opposite parties to release the amount of the aforesaid two policies to the minors but they refused to do so. A legal notice was served on opposite parties Nos. 1 & 3. and Personnel Manager, Northern Zone, New Delhi. As the claim of the minors -claimants was not settled the complaint was filed for the award of the amount of Rs. 4,46,670/ - as detailed below: - Amount payable: Policy No. 79364234 Rs. 1,00,000.00 Policy No. 79364235 Rs. 1,00,000.00 Rs. 2,00,000.00 Cost of suit and travel exp. for coming to Jaipur from Delhi Rs. 10,000.00 Interest at 12% upto end of Feb. 91 Rs. 1,36,670.00 Mental suffering and harassment for both the minors@ 50,000/ - each. Rs. 1,00,000.00 Grand Total: Rs. 4,46,670.00

THE complaint for the recovery of Rs. 4,46,670/ - as stated above was filed on 3.4.91. A reply to the complaint on behalf of opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was submitted resisting the complaint on 7.9.91. As stated above the preliminary objection regarding the locus standi of the complainant Shri S.R. Mehta, incomplete description in the title and complaint not being against the L.I.C. of India were raised. As stated above the minor -complainants and LIC have been added as parties to the complaint vide order dated 20.4.92. It was pleaded that the policies holder Shri B.S. Mahanot asked for the dating back policy and in column No3 of the proposal form which he filled up stated that the policy is to be dated back, which indicated the back date as 21.4.1985 in both the proposal forms. On the basis of this that Mr. B.S. Mahanot stated from 21st April, 1985, the policy commenced from that date and so the second premium was payable on April 21, 1986. This according to opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 & 3 was the annual payment in nature and this dated back policy was issued for the benefits of the deceased himself from April 21, 1985. Acceptance letter was issued on March 7,1986 showing the due date for the second premium as April 21, 1986 and the policies were issued which commenced from April 21,1985. Fact of depositing he cheques was admitted. It was stated that the second premium became due on April 21, 1986 which was not paid by the policy holder -insured and as such both the policies lapsed automatically and remained lying lapsed even on September 10, 1986 and so nothing was due against the said policies. According to them letter of acceptance -cum FPRs dated June 7, 1986 showing the next date of yearly premium on April 21, 1986 was issued and also got confirmed through the original policy bonds. According to them as the policies lapsed after the death of the assured there was no question of payment of the sum assured. It was submitted that Smt. Vimla Jalori was not the nominee but the trustee of the minor children. A correct information was given that the second premium became due on April 21, 1986 and it was not paid and therefore the policies were lapsed. It was stated that the claim filed by the complainant did not fall within the provisions contained in Sec. 2(1)(g) of the Act and/or the complainant are consumers and dispute raised is not a consumer dispute. Under the head additional pleas the following objections were raised for showing that the State Commission is not competent to entertain the complaint of the complainant (1) That the complainant is not complainant as envisaged under Sec. 2(1)(c) of the Act. (2) That the complaint does not involve the controversy of consumer dispute as contemplated in Sec. 2(1)(e) of the Act. (3) That the policies are not the ''goods'' as defined in Sec. 2(1)(j) of the Act and (4) That the complaint has not been filed by the heirs of Shri Baldev Singh Mahanot and, therefore, it is not maintainable.

IN support of the version of the case Shri Mahendra Kumar Chathli, Senior Regional Manager, LIC of India submitted his affidavit. With the version of the case the following documents amongst others were submitted by the opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 & 3. (1) Proposal form dated 8.2.86, (2) Receipt Index dated 7.3.86, (3) Receipt premium (4) Policy bonds dated 13.5.86 and (5) Receipt.

.

THE complainant submitted his affidavit on 3.2.92. In the first instance the complaint was fixed for considering the preliminary objections raised by opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 & 3. However vide order sheet dated 3.12.91 the decision on the preliminary objections was deferred until final orders on the complaint. On behalf of the opposite parties a carbon copy of the letter dated 22.9.86 and photostat copy of the letter dated 24.3.1988 were submitted. Notice of these letters were given to the learned Counsel for the complainants to which he said that he will file documents in rebuttal. Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted affidavit with the photostat copies. Thereafter an affidavit of Shri S. Ramanathan on behalf of the opposite parties was submitted. On behalf of the complainant an application alongwith original documents marked as Annexures A to I were submitted. The copies thereof were given to the learned Counsel for the opposite parties. After the addition of opposite party No. 4 version of the case was submitted as appears from the proceedings dated 8.7.92. The version of the case on behalf of the opposite party No. 4 is more or less the same with that of opposite parties Nos. 1,2 & 3. On 16.10.92 on behalf of the complainants an additional reply was submitted on 15.10.92. An objection was raised by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties that this reply should not be taken on record as the complaint is fixed for arguments. It was ordered on 16.10.92 that the additional reply so filed cannot be taken on record.

ORAL arguments of Shri S.M. Mathur, learned Counsel for the complainants and Mr. B.L. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the opposite parties were heard on 27.11.92. We have carefully considered the complaint, versions of the case filed on behalf of the opposite parties Nos. 1,2,3 & 4, the affidavits and the documents submitted on behalf of the following points arise for our determination: - (1) Whether the complaint which was filed on 3.4.91 is within limitation? (2) Whether the policies issued to Shri B.S. Mahanot lapsed on account of non -payment of premium of April, 1986? (3) Whether the complainants can maintain the complaint? and (4) If the answers to points Nos. 1 and 2 are against he opposite parties, to what amount the complainants are entitled from the opposite parties arising out of policies No. 79364234 and 79364235?

WE propose to deal with the above points ad seriatam:, Re. Point No. 1 : Shri B.S. Mahanot got himself insured with the LIC on his life by means of two policies for Rs. 50,000/ - each under Jeevan Mitra Scheme (double cover endowment plan) with accident benefits with opposite party No. 2. Two cheques amounting to Rs. 3,057.50 and Rs. 3,910/ - being the first premium of the said two policies under plan No. 88 -20 and No. 88 -15 were deposited by the policy holder. The cheques were duly checked and encashed in the account of the LIC. Thereafter on 13.5.86 two policies No. 79364234 and 79364235 for Rs. 50,000/ - each were issued in favour of Shri B.S. Mahanot and the premium payable was in the month of April each year. Shri B.S. Mahanot expired on 10.9.86. Mrs. Vimla Jalori who was nominee lodged a claim on behalf of the minors -complainants. On this the L.I.C. informed the nominee that the policies have lapsed as premium payable in April, 86 has not been paid. By the letter dated 22.9.86 Smt. Vimla Jalori was informed that the policies have lapsed since April, 86 due to nonpayment of premiums and therefore the policies have acquired neither paid up value nor surrender value and so nothing is payable under the said policies. The contention of the learned Counsel for the opposite parties is that as the policies had lapsed and the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 22.9.86 the complaint as filed on 3.4.91 is barred by limitation for no suit could be instituted by the complainants for the amounts payable under the policies on the date when the complaint was filed on 3.4.91. On the other hand on behalf of the complainant it is submitted that the claim is within limitation. Our attention was drawn to para 24 of the complaint wherein reference has been made to the letters dated 24.12.90 and 30.1.91. By these letters the opposite parties intimated that the action is being taken by them for settling the claim of the claimants. Letter dated 22.9.86 from Bhilwara Branch of LIC, letter dated 16.6.88 from Bhilwara Branch of LIC, letter dated 30.6.88 from Bhilwara Branch of LIC, letter dated 27.8.88 from Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC, Ajmer, letter dated 5.9.89 from Divisional Manager, LIC, Ajmer, letter dated 18.9.89, from Divisional Manager, LIC, Ajmer letter dated 19.12.90 from Bhilwara Branch LIC, letter dated 24.12.90 Northern Zone Office, LIC New Delhi and letter dated 30.1.91 from Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC, Ajmer marked as Annexures A to I were submitted. A perusal of these letters show that they were sent in reply to the letters sent on behalf of the claimants complainants and that various officers of LIC were taking action in the matter. The letter dated 24.12.90 written to the Counsel for the complainants shows that the matter was referred to the Ajmer Divisional Office. Thereafter by letter dated 30.1.91 Senior Divisional Manager informed the learned Counsel for the complainants that the cases arising out of the two policies had been sent to the higher office for their perusal and on hearing from them, they will write further in this behalf. It is thus clear that despite writing the letter on 22.9.86 on the request made on behalf of the complainants by letters referred to in para 24 of the complaint the matter was referred on behalf of the opposite parties to the higher authorities and the matter did not stand concluded as regards the repudiation of the claim which was lodged with the opposite parties on behalf of the minor complainants. The matter was very much in action and consideration as is evident from the letters referred to above it appears that the matter was referred to the higher authorities of the opposite parties. The words used in the letter dated 31.1.91 ''and on hearing from them, we shall write to you further in this behalf'' clearly suggest that the matter was still under consideration and reply was to be given by the opposite parties to the complainants. The letter dated 31.1.91 was received on 8.2.91. The complainants waited for about 3 months for the action which may have been taken by the opposite parties as was intimated on 31.1.91. As nothing was done ultimately the complaint was filed on 3.4.91. It may be recalled that the policy holder of the two policies died on 10.9.86. By letter dated 22.9.86 it was intimated that the policies have lapsed. On 16.6.88 the Branch Manager informed the Counsel for the complainants in regard to the supply of the photostat copies of the proposal forms and they were forwarded to the Divisional Office for further action as such he was requested to write directly to the Divisional Office, Ajmer in this regard. This was reiterated in the letter dated 30.6.88. It was on 5.9.1989 that an intimation was given that the opposite parties are unable to revise the decision of treating the policies as lapsed. After that by letter dated 24.12.90 the matter was referred to the Ajmer Divisional Office and by letter dated 30.1.91 the complainant was told to wait as to what action is taken by the higher officers in regard to the claim. Thus, there was no final termination of the claim upto 30.1.91 and as stated above the complaint was filed on 3.4.91, it was within limitation. It may also be stated that the National Commission has in I (1992) CPJ 335 (NC) laid down that the Limitation Act in terms is not applicable to the proceedings under the Act. It observed therein as under: - ''On going through the pleadings, we find it averred that after the occurrence of the incident, the Bank kept on informing the complainant from time to time that the whole matter was being investigated by them and that the incident had also been reported to the police and that action was being pursued by the Police also. Unfortunately, those investigations carried out by the Bank as well as by the Police did not produce any concrete results and it was on coming to know about such failure that the petitioner approached the State Commission with the complaint petition claiming compensation. It would, thus appear that the petitioner was lulled into a state of inaction by giving her a false sense of hope of retrieving the jewellery by such representations made to her and it was in these circumstances that she refrained from initiating action under the Consumer Protection Act before the State Commission immediately after her coming to know of the incident. Such being the case, we consider that it was wrong on the part of the Bank which is a Public Sector Undertaking and thus an instrumentality of the State, to resist the petitioners prayer for adjudication of her claim by putting forward the plea of limitation. Time and again, it has been pointed out by the Supreme Court of India that it is not proper that the Government and instrumentalities of State should seek to avoid the adjudication of a claim made against them merely on the technical plea of bar of the limitation when there has not been any manifest and deliberate laches on the part of the citizen putting forward the claim. ''The Limitation Act in terms does not apply to the proceedings before the Consumer Protection Forums and this Commission has been applying the rules incorporated in the Act only on the ground that it will not be conducive to public policy and public good to have stale claims brought up for adjudication after lapse of long periods of time thereby depriving the public of a sense of security and certainty that old matters which have become settled and stale by long lapse of time will not be allowed to be reopened. It is certainly not in furtherance of public policy nor in the interests of public good that the Governmental Agencies like Public Sector Banks should obstruct the investigation of claims made against them by a party in circumstances such as in the present case by putting forward the plea of limitation.''

WHILE following the above case this view was reiterated in I (1992) CPJ 313 (NC). In the facts and circumstances of the case apart from the fact that the claim cannot be treated as barred by time, it may be observed that it was not proper for the LIC to have raised the plea of limitation to defeat the claim of the minor complainants as was observed in the above two cases. It is, therefore, held that the complaint as filed on 3.4.91 on behalf of the minor -complainants against the opposite parties for the settlement of the claim in respect of two policies issued in favour of the policy holder Shri B.S. Mahanot was not barred by limitation. It is within limitation. Point No. 1 formulated hereinabove is decided against the opposite parties and in favour of the complainant.

RE . Point No. 2: The principal question is whether the policies issued lapsed on account of non -payment of the premium in the month of April, 86 as alleged by the opposite parties. A few facts deserve recall. Jeevan Mitra Scheme was formulated by the LIC in the month of July, 1985 (21.7.85), The date of proposal is 8.2.86. The cheques were issued and encashed on 28.2.86. Date of acceptance letters -cum -FPRs was on 17.3.1986. The risk commenced as per acceptance letter on 12.4.1985. The premium was payable in the month of April, every year. The policy contract was signed on 13.5.86. Mr. B.S. Mahanot died on 10.9.86 and the claim was filed in the month of September, 86. The claim was rejected on 22.9.86 on the ground that there was default in the payment of the premium though notice was not issued by the LIC and the premium was due only in April, 87 and not in April, 86. The opposite parties as per version of the case did not issue any reminder for the so called second premium which was according to the opposite parties due on 21.4.86. However premiums reminders were received for April, 87 and April, 88. The proposal forms were given on 28.2.86. In the column relating to if policies are to date back indicate such date 21.4.85 is mentioned. The controversy is with respect to the mention of this date (21.4.85) in the proposal form. In this connection the serious question which arises is that when the first premium was paid by the policy holder in the month of February, 86 could the back dated policy be considered to be in force prior to the introduction of the Jeevan Mitra Scheme which came into force only from 1.7.85. As the Scheme had come into force from 1.7.85, the first premium was paid and it cannot be for April 21, 1985 the Scheme when had come into force from 1.7.85. The receipt is conspicuously silent with respect to the premium relating to April, 1986. The policies were issued on 13.5.86. There is no controversy with respect to this and one premium was paid of each of these two policies. If according to the version of the opposite parties premiums of two policies to be paid in April, 86 were due, there was no rhyme or reason for issuing the policy for under the Insurance Act a concluded contract of insurance comes into existence only when the premiums payable are paid. In this case the contract was concluded and the policies were issued. The contract had come into existence when the policies were issued. In AIR 1984 SC 1014 it was held that a concluded contract of insurance comes in existence when the policies are issued and in this case the policies were issued on 13.5.86 despite the fact that according to the opposite parties premium of April, 86 was due. It was observed that the policy contract of insurance comes into existence only on the signing by the competent authority incorporating complete conditions of the contract and its communication to the offerer. One fails to understand when there was non -payment of the premium of April, 86 how could the policy be issued in May, 86? A contention was raised on behalf of the opposite parties that back date could be done within the same financial year. Assuming this argument to be correct even then this could not go beyond 1.4.86 as the date of signing the policy contract was 13.5.86. From the narration of these facts it is clear that there is no substance in the contention raised on behalf of the opposite parties that the contract of insurance was concluded on 17.3.86 giving effect to the back date i.e. 21.4.85 and as such the policy stood lapsed on 21.4.86 for non -payment of the second premium fell due on 21.4.86 cannot be accepted. The argument even otherwise does not hold water for the reason that if the premiums of 21.4.86 were due from the policy holder could they issue policies when the premiums were due. The policies were signed actually on 13.5.86 by putting the date 13.5.86 as the premium, was deposited on 18.2.86. It follows that the said premium was accepted by the LIC against the said contract. The contention raised on behalf of the opposite parties that the said premiums were accepted in respect of earlier year due to the back dating of the policy then so called back dating would mean that L.I.C. had signed the contract of insurance without the necessary premium, a contract of insurance on a lapsed policy which no reasonable and same person would do. There is no dispute that the premium of April, 86 was paid and may be for the reasons unknown to the policy holder as he has died either by mistake or otherwise 21.4.85 was mentioned as back dating date. So far as the back dating of the policy is concerned one thing is clear and that is that during the period of back dating though the opposite parties charged premium for it, the policies were issued on

5.86. THE premium payable was April in every year. Thus the premiums of the aforesaid two policies were to be paid in April, 1987. Condition No. 2of the policies reads as follows: - Payment of Premium : A grace period of one month but not less than 30 days will be allowed for payment of yearly, half -yearly or quarterly premiums and 15 days for monthly premiums. If death occurs within this period and before the payment of the premium then due, the policy will still be valid and the sum assured paid after deduction of the said premium as also the unpaid premiums falling due before the expiry of the days of grace the policy lapses.

If the policy has not lapsed and the claim is admitted in case of death under a policy where the mode of payment of premium is other than yearly, unpaid premiums. If any, falling due before the next policy anniversary shall be deducted from the claim amount.

Condition No. 5 is relevant which may be referred is as follows: - ''Forfeiture Incertain events : In case the premiums shall not be duly paid or in case any condition herein contained or endorsed hereon shall be contravened or in case it is found that any untrue or incorrect statement is contained in the proposal, personal statement, declaration and connected documents or any material information is withheld, then and in every such case but subject to the provisions of Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938, wherever applicable, this policy shall be void and all claims to any benefit in virtue hereof shall cease and determine and all moneys that have been paid in consequence hereof shall belong to the Corporation. Excepting always in so far as relief is provided in terms of the privileges herein contained or may be lawfully granted by the Corporation.''

From these it is clear that the policies had come into existence on 13.5.86. This does not bear scrutiny, for, where was the necessity of back dating. As stated above Mr. B.S. Mahanot died on 10.9.86. A claim was filed by the nominee on behalf of the minor -claimants. THE LIC rejected the claim on 22.9.86 for want of payment, of second premiums which had fallen due on 21.4.1986 (back dated w.e.f. 21.4.1985). THEre was no notice of date of premium was issued by the LIC. THE first premium was paid on 8.2.86 alongwith the proposal form that was still available with the LIC for adjustment towards policy contract at the time of signing the policy contract. Until September, 1986 no intimation was given to the policy holder when he was alive, when his policies had lapsed in April, 1986. Had the information been given he would have paid the premium. THE stand taken by the opposite parties in regard to the lapsing of the policies is contradictory.

. 13. From the foregoing discussion it follows that no premium for April, 1986 was payable and after the payment of the premiums the policies were issued on 13.5.86 and as the policies were issued after the payment of premiums, the question of lapsing of the policies does not arise. Point No. 2 formulated hereinabove is decided against the opposite parties. It may be stated that the son and daughter are the beneficiaries of the policies and Shri S.R. Mehta was appointed as legal guardian by the District Judge, Bhilwara, vide order dated 27.11.87 and therefore the complaint as filed on behalf of the minor complainants is property constituted and they being beneficiaries are entitled to maintain the complaint.

RE .Point No. 3: Once we have come to the conclusion that the complaint was filed within the limitation and both these policies have not lapsed, the next question that arises is as to what amount the complainants are entitled for the settlement of the claim. The sum assured mentioned in each of the policies is Rs. 50,000/ -. It contains a special provision that if the policies continue to be in force, for the full sum assured, in the event of the Life Assureds death prior to the date of maturity, an additional amount equal to the sum assured specified in the Schedule to the policy shall be payable to the proposer or his assignees or nominees or legal representatives. The complainants are heirs and legal representatives of Shri B.S. Mahanot in whose name the policies were issued. Both the policies were for the assured sum Rs. 50,000/ - each and therefore in respect of each of the policies claimants are entitled to Rs. 50,000/ -each i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/ -in all. Under the terms of the policy neither the expenses for conducting the complaint nor for travel expenditure for coming to Jaipur from Delhi can be allowed. Apart from the fact that there is no proof on record for incurring of the expenditure, no amount on account of mental suffering and harassment to both the minors @ Rs. 50,000/ - each as mentioned by them can be granted. In the matter of insurance under the terms of the policy the amount is payable. Thus the claim for Rs. 1,00,000/ - for mental suffering and harassment to both the minors and cost of travelling expenditure for coming to Jaipur from Delhi amounting to Rs. 10,000/ - is rejected. As the opposite parties have resisted the claim of the minor complainants without any justification and they were deprived of the sum assured we are of opinion that they should be awarded interest by way of compensation on Rs. 2,00,000/ - which would have been available within 4 months from the date of the filing of the claim which in this case is September, 89. The minors have been deprived of the amount for a long period. We consider that award of interest (a) 18% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ - i.e. the sum assured from 1st January, 1990 (4 months from the date of the death of the policy holder) until realisation should be awarded. It is ordered that the opposite parties shall settle the claim of the complainants (legal representatives of Shri B.S. Mahanot through legally appointed guardian Shri S.R. Mehta) by paying Rs. 2,00,000/ -, the sum assured of policies Nos. 79364234 and 79364235 issued in favour of Mr. B.S. Mahanot together with interest (g) 18% p.a. on Rs. 2,00,000/ - from 1.1.90 until realisation within one month from the date of the receipt of the order. Rest of the claim of the complainants if rejected.

THE complaint succeeds to the extent as indicated above. In the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs of the complaint. Complaint decided as above.