The court in this case did not explicitly hold that in the absence of deficiency in service, Consumer Fora cannot grant any relief. Instead, the court focused on the contractual terms of the insurance policy and the specific provisions regarding the payment of interest and the settlement of a lapsed policy. It clarified that interest is not payable on the reduced sum paid as a consequence of a lapsed policy, as the contract explicitly states that no interest will be paid on such payments (!) (!) . The court emphasized that the relief granted must be in accordance with the terms of the contract and the relevant law, and it rejected the claim for interest based on the contractual provisions and applicable statutes (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the court pointed out that the amount paid by LIC was not a refund of premiums but a reduced lump sum payable under the policy, and thus, the question of interest on premiums from the respective dates of payment does not arise (!) (!) . It also clarified that the award of interest on the amount paid in respect of a lapsed policy was not supported by the contract, statute, or law, and that courts cannot rewrite the terms of the contract to award interest contrary to its provisions (!) .

Therefore, the decision was based on the contractual and legal framework governing the insurance policy and not on a general principle that relief cannot be granted in the absence of deficiency in service. The court's reasoning was specific to the facts of the case and the nature of the relief sought, rather than a broad rule about deficiency in service and relief eligibility.