Ashok Bhan, President—Petitioner, who was the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Convenient Shopping Centre, Saini Enclave, Delhi-92 (hereinreferred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short), has filed the present revision petition.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case

are:

Complainants’’ wife, Smt. Ravinder Kaur (now deceased), had taken two Life Insurance Policies from Life Insurance Corporation of India—respondent herein as per particulars given below and had nominated the petitioner as the person to receive the policy money in the event of her premature death:

Policy No. Plan Sum Assured Date of Commencement

110855493 88-20 Rs. 1,00,000 28.01.1990

110855700 88-20 Rs. 1,00,000 28.01.1990

3. Insured died on 4.4.1995. Petitioner lodged a claim with the respondent with regard to both the Insurance Policies. Respondent repudiated the claim on the ground that the insured had withheld certain material facts while taking the Insurance Policies. Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed the Complaint before the District Forum.

4. Respondent, in its reply before the District forum, took the stand that both the Policies had lapsed but later on, Policy No.110855700 was got revived but Policy No.110855493 was never got revived. District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the insured had withheld certain material facts regarding her state of health while taking the Policies. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short) which has been allowed by the impugned Order and the respondent has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 being the insurable amount under Policy No. 110855700 along with compensation and cost of litigation put together at Rs. 10,000.

5. Life Insurance Corporation of India has accepted the order passed by the State Commission, as it has not challenged the order passed by the State Commission.

6. Petitioner has filed this revision petition alleging that the insured had taken the Insurance Policy under “Jeevan Mitra (Double Cover Endowment Plan) With Profits” and the State Commission had erred in limiting the claim to Rs. 1,00,000 whereas, according to the petitioner, he is entitled to double of the insured amount of Rs. l,00,000 along with benefits, compensation and interest for the period of delayed payment. As against this, counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioner had not claimed the double benefit under the Insurance Policy before the District Forum.

7. Petitioner had filed the complaint seeking a direction to the respondent to make full payment along with other benefits like bonus, etc., along with interest @ 24%. Since, the prayer made by the petitioner was along with benefits under the Policy, the petitioner would be entitled to the claim the amount as per the policy.

8. The petitioner had taken the policy under “Jeevan Mitra (Double Cover Endowment Plan) With Profits”. Under the policy, in the event of death of the life assured prematurely, respondent had undertaken to pay double the amount of sum assured along with bonus declared up to the financial year immediately preceding the next policy anniversary .On that premises, the petitioner would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 together with bonus and interest for the delayed payment and compensation for avoidable and unnecessary harassment.

9. For the reasons stated above, we modified the order of the State Commission and direct the respondent to pay to the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 under Insurance Policy No. 110855700 along with accrued bonus and interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. The compensation of Rs. 10,000 awarded by the State Commission is adequate. No change is required in the same.

10. Insofar as Policy No.110855493 is concerned, the same had already lapsed and was never got revived and, th