A policy covering accident benefit cannot be issued to a minor.

Mr. Justice S. Parvatha Rao, President— We do not find any merit in this appeal preferred by the unsuccessful complainant questioning the order of the Hyderabad District Forum-I dated 27.3.1998 dismissing O.P. No. 581/1995. The opposite parties in that O.P. are the respondents before us.

2. The facts clearly do not support the claim of the complainant. The complainant is the nominee under a policy taken in the name of her son M. Arvind Kumar for Rs. 2,00,000/- dated 29.9.1992 (marked as Ex. A.1). The quarterly premium amount was Rs. 2,541/- and it is not in dispute that the premia were being paid regularly. It is also not in dispute that M. Arvind Kumar was a minor at the time when the policy was issued. The learned Counsel for the appellant/ complainant states that M. Arvind Kumar was aged 17 years 5 months and 15 days when the policy was taken. The complainant was paid Rs. 2,35,106/-. The grievance of the complainant was that she was not paid a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the basis that the policy was with accident benefit.

3. The opposite parties in their version/ counter stated that the policy that was taken by M. Arvind Kumar was without any accident benefit and that the relevant printed terms in that policy relating to accident benefit were in fact deleted. The opposite parties also stated in their version that those who had not completed 18 years of age were not entitled to the accident benefit and at the relevant time also it was so, and that even if a policy with accident benefit was asked in the case of M. Arvind Kumar, it could not have been given.

4. On behalf of the complainant it was sought to be contended before the District Forum that the relevant provisions in the policy issued relating to accident benefit were deleted by the opposite parties after the policy was submitted alongwith the claim form and that the policy as originally handed over to the insured was without deletions. The District Forum in detailed considered this contention and on the basis of the material on record rejected the same. We are inclined to agree with the District Forum because no material whatsoever was placed by the complainant either before the District Forum or before us for that matter to establish that the policy as originally issued was without the deletions of the clauses relating to accident benefit.

5. We would go further and hold that even if a policy mistakenly was issued covering accident benefit, no claim can be made on that basis. In Postmaster, Dargamitta H.P.O., Nellore v. Raja Prameelamma, (1998) 9 SCC 706, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where due to inadvertence on the part of clerical staff the old rate of interest and maturity value which was printed on the certificates was not corrected while issuing National Savings Certificates (VI Issue) on 28.4.1987 even though the rate of interest payable with effect from 1.4.1987 was 11 % as per the notification by the Government of India. Rejecting the contention that the Union of India was bound by the old rate of interest and maturity value mentioned in the certificates when not corrected, the Supreme Court agreed with the following reasoning of the dissenting Member of the National Commission :

"It is evident from the definition of the term "deficiency' that it must be a fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained under a law or has been undertaken to be performed in pursuance of a contract.

xxx xxx xxx

As regards the contract, no doubt the sale of National Savings Certificates with the terms and conditions embodied thereon constitutes a contract between the Government of India as seller and the holders of the National Savings Certificates. But as this contract was contract to the terms notified by the Government of