JUDGEMENT

1.      Heard Mr. Lakshay Sawhney, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Parikshit P., Advocate, for the respondent. 

2.      Above revision has been filed against the order of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, dated 09.07.2021, passed in First Appeal No.284 of 2015 (arising from the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Uttar Kannada, at Karwar, dated 05.04.2014 passed in CC/106/2013), whereby the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and allowed the appeal filed by the complainant, with the direction to the petitioner/opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- alongwith compensation of Rs.50000/- for mental agony and Rs.10000/- as litigation cost.

3.      The office has reported delay of 5 days in filing of the revision. The petitioner has not filed any application for condonation of delay nor has the respondent raised any objection on delay. In the interest of justice, delay is condoned.

4.      Late Harishchandra Ganapati Naik filed CC/106/2013 for directing the petitioner to (i) pay the assured amount of Rs.50000/- to the complainant with interest @ 18% from the date of maturity till the disbursement of the maturity amount; (ii) pay litigation cost to the complainant; and (iii) any other relief which Hon’ble Forum deems fit to meet the ends of justice and equity. Deceased Harishchandra Ganapati Naik obtained Jeevan Adhar Policy No.631350 from the opposite party, which was valid for 10 years from 01.01.1996 till 03.01.2006. On maturity of the policy after 10 years, the insured claimed for maturity amount to take care of his mentally retarded and handicapped son. The opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that the policy is a lifetime policy providing benefits to the handicapped dependent son of the insured on the death of the life assured. Aggrieved by repudiation of the claim, the complainant filed consumer complaint No.106 of 2013 with the District Commission.

5.      The complaint was resisted by the opposite party by filing the written statement. It was stated that the policy was specially designed for physically handicapped dependent son of the insured and the policy holder cannot claim any benefit during his lifetime. The terms & conditions of the policy provided that after death of the policyholder, 20% amount would be paid to the handicapped dependent son of the insured and 80% amount would be utilized for annuity to the physically handicapped dependent on the basis of his age. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

6.      The District Commission, by judgment dated 05.04.2014, dismissed the complaint. The complainant preferred First Appeal No.284 of 2015 with the State Commission. The State Commission, by impugned judgment dated 09.07.2021, set aside the order of the District Commission and allowed the appeal directing the opposite party as stated hereinabove. Hence the opposite party has filed this revision.

7.      I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State Commission has passed the impugned order on whims and fancies, in utter violation of the terms & conditions of the policy. Perusal of the insurance policy shows that there is a special provision that the policy is earmarked by the proposer and the life assured for the benefit of handicapped dependent son of the life assured for his support maintenance. There is no provision in the policy for payment of maturity amount on completion of ten years. The maturity amount is payable only on the death of the life assured. Allahabad High Court in Justice RRK Trivedi (Retd.) vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India 2013 (1) AWC 318 ALL upheld the policy and held that the benefit under the policy can be given only after the death of the applicant.

8.      The vires of Jeevan Adhar Policy has been challenged before the Supreme Court in Ravi Aggarwal vs. Union of India (2019) 18 180 on the ground that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has held that since policy has been issued in compliance of Section 80DD of Income Tax Act, 1961 which was a fiscal statute, therefore, its vires cannot be challenged on the ground of Article 14 of the Constitution and upheld the policy. The Court can interpret the terms & conditions of the policy if there is any ambiguity in the same. In the present case the terms & conditions are very specific. The parties are bound by the contract of insurance. The opposite party was justified in repudiating the claim. The impugned order passed by the State Commission is in violation of the terms & conditions of the insurance policy as well as judgment of the Supreme Court and is liable to be set aside.

O R D E R

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.07.2021 passed by the State Commission is set aside and that of the District Commission is upheld and the complaint is dismissed.