Mr. Justice K.J. Vaidya, President—Smt. Naniben Bhimjibhai Solanki, by this appeal has brought under challenge the impugned judgment and order dated 27.9.1996 rendered in Complaint No. 221/1995 by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Junagadh wherein her said complaint against the two respondents namely (1) Una Nagarpalika; and (2) the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Rajkot (LIC for short) same to be dismissed.

2. To narrate few relevant facts, Bhimjibhai Lakhabhai the husband of the present appellant Naniben was serving as an employee with the respondent No. 2 Una Municipality since 27.5.1959 which has taken the group insurance for its employees from the respondent No. 1 LIC in the year 1993 having the policy No. GSLI/ 15920. It appears that some of the employees of the Una Municipality joined the said scheme immediately whereas for whatever reason Bhimjibhai and two others did not. It further appears that subsequently LIC as usual appears to have explained and persuaded the benefits of the said CIS to the remaining employees whereupon Bhimjibhai, husband of the appellant along with other employees volunteered to join and, accordingly, joined the said scheme on 20.6.1994. This information through official, routine was conveyed to the Branch Manager LIC, Rajkot by a letter dated 5.1.1995 written by the Chief Officer, Una Municipality. Not only this but it also further appears that Bhimjibhai was accordingly placed at serial No. 67 and in all had paid four premiums of Rs. 60/- per month, starting from 20.6.1994 onward upto 19.9.1994. Unfortunately he died of heart attack on 2.9.1994 during the course of the employment. Thus, under the circumstances, the appellant on becoming widow nominee, on 30.11.1994 preferred a claim of Rs. 60,000/- to LIC which came to be repudiated by a letter dated 18.2.1995 addressed to the Chief Officer, Una Municipality on the ground that at the point of time when the group insurance scheme came to be introduced her husband had not joined the scheme and therefore he was not entitled to any benefit under the said scheme. Along with this letter of repudiation of the insurance claim, whatever premium amount was received from Una Municipality on behalf of the husband of the appellant, was refunded.

3. Aggrieved by the said repudiation, appellant filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum, against the Una Municipality and LIC not only alleging that the repudiation of her claim was ex facie illegal but further alleging the deficiency in service also in not settling the claim immediately and accordingly on the basis of the same ultimately praying for directing both the respondents to pay her due insurance claim of Rs. 60,000/- at the rate of 18% p.a. and other damages, etc. etc.

4. On the complaint being registered, notice was issued and in response to the same, Una Municipality as well as the LIC, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively appeared before the District Forum and submitted their replies on affidavit at Exhs. 12 and 13. It was mainly contended by the LIC that as per the rules and regulations of the group insurance scheme since Bhimjibhai Lakhabhai (deceased) had not opted for the same when it came to be introduced he could not be subsequently included to be entitled to claim any benefit under the said scheme. It was further contended that there was a procedure prescribed for those employees who subsequently proposed themselves intending to avail of the benefit under the group insurance scheme by entering into separate agreement. This has not been done in the instant case by the deceased husband of the appellant. In this view of the matter, no amount of unilateral deduction of premium from the salary of the employee by the Una Municipality as has been done by it in the instant case can automatically bestow any benefit of group insurance scheme upon the appellant to claim benefit on behalf of her deceased husband. It was next contended that merely beca