Thiru Justice A. Raman, President—The complainant’s case is as follows:

The husband of the complainant Ramalingam had taken a policy for Rs. 1,00,000/- on 28.6.1987 under policy No. 740182892. The complainant is the nominee under the said policy. The insured Ramalingam died on 19.4.1997. At the time of the death of the complainant’s husband, the policy was in force. There is another policy in Policy No. 061033166 for Rs. 25,000/- in favour of the said Ramalingam. On 2.7.1997, the complainant sent an application claiming the maturity amount due under the Policy No. 740182892 and 061033166. The 4th opposite party ordered payment of the matured amount due under the Policy No. 061033166 but declined to order the amount due on the policy No. 740182892. The 4th opposite party also sent a discharge form mentioning the low amount instead of the full amount. The complainant approached his agent and requested him to claim the matured amount due under the policy. On 18.12.1997, the complainant received a letter from the 3rd opposite party stating that the revival of the policy was declared as void as it was revived by giving false information. The policy was revived on 22.4.1996 on the st