Thiru Justice A. Raman, President—The opposite party viz., Divisional Manager and Branch Manager of Life Insurance Corporation of India are the appellants herein. The complainant filed the complaint stating as follows: The husband of the complainant one Vijayakumar was a resident of Puliyankurichi Village, in Attur Taluk. He had insured his life with the Life Insurance Corporation of India [LIC] for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh under policy No. 700354646. It is a policy under double benefit accident scheme commencing from 26.8.1994. The premia due thereon were paid regularly. On 25.5.1995, the said Vijayakumar died at Sundar Surgical Nursing Home due to a dog bite. The complainant made a claim to the opposite parties for the payment of the amount. The Insurance Company paid a sum of Rs. 4,948/- by way of premia only along with the assure sum of Rs. 1 lakh. They did not pay the additional sum of Rs. 1 lakh under the double accident benefit scheme. The opposite party wrote a letter asking for the actual date of dog bite and the reason for not reporting the matter to the police for which the complainant has sent reply. She had given the date of dog bite as 17.5.1995 and had also given reasons for not reporting to the police. Even after the receipt of the said letter, the opposite parties insisted upon the complainant to inform the exact date of dog bite. In spite of repeated requests and reminders, no action was taken by them. So, the complainant issued a notice through her Counsel on 19.7.1997 claiming the additional sum. Thereafter only a letter was received by the complainant to the effect that her claim has been rejected since the deceased was bitten by dog either on 8th/10th December, 1994 and not on 17.5.1995. Further, there is no provision in any law for reporting the dog bite to the police. Thus, there is deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in rendering service and hence the complaint.

2. The opposite parties filed their version pleading thus: The deceased Vijayakumar had taken the policy on his own life for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh with accident benefit and the risk commenced from 26.8.1994. It was reported that the assured died on 25.5.1995 due to “Hydrophobia”. The claimant submitted the claim form on 23.6.1995. Since the policy has resulted into an early claim within a short period of 8 months and 29 days and as the sum assured was high in a sum of Rs. 1 lakh, investigation into the bona fides of the claim was conducted. The investigation revealed that the deceased was bitten by a dog either on 8th or 10th December, 1994 and had taken some local treatment for the same. According to the policy conditions, the accident should have been caused outward violent and visible means and the injury should result in the death of life assured within 120 days of the incident. Also, the incident should be reported to the police and post-mortem should be conducted. But in this case, the accident viz., the incident of dog bite was not reported nor the death has resulted within 120 days of dog bite. It has occurred after 165 days from the date of dog bite. The allegation of the complainant that the deceased was bitten by a dog only on 17.5.1995 is untenable. Hence in accordance with the policy conditions, the claim for basic sum assured viz., the sum of Rs. 1 lakh with the premium already paid plus interim bonus of Rs. 6,700/- less the unpaid premia, were all paid. The claim for accident benefit was rightly repudiated. There is absolutely no deficiency in service. There is no cause of action for the complainant.

3. The lower Forum accepted the case of the complainant and directed the opposite parties to pay sum of Rs. 1 lakh due under the double accident benefit scheme with interest at 12% from 1.8.1995. Hence this appeal.

4. At the outset, the averments made by the Counsel for the appellant that the dog bite has not been reported to the police and that post-mortem has not been done and, therefore, on that ground the opposite parties w