The acceptance of insurance cover and continuation of premium payments indicate the intention to continue the policy, which can affect the validity of claims related to extra premium.

ORDER

Usha S. Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member - Being aggrieved by the order passed by Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane in consumer complaint no. 263/1997, original complainant/appellant Mr. C.K. Kulkarni has filed appeal bearing no. 164/2001. By the impugned order, learned District Forum was pleased to dismiss the consumer complaint bearing no. 263/1997 filed by complainant Mr. C.K. Kulkarni. Facts giving rise to present appeal in short are as under:-

2. Complainant had obtained 'ASHA DEEP II' policy bearing no. 920667647 from the opponent no. 1/respondent no. 1 for sum assured of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Agent of Insurance company Shri Bhagwat calculated the premium amount of Rs. 7,459/-. Complainant paid first premium as per standard table 121 and the opponent issued receipt for the payment. Complainant came to know that the proposal is sent to Divisional office at Thane. However, in the month of November 1996, agent Shri Bhagwat informed to complainant that extra premium of Rs. 668/- is charged. No reason was disclosed for extra premium. The complainant paid extra premium of Rs. 668/-. Complainant received a letter asking him to give consent for extra premium. Said consent was not signed by the complainant. Complainant received policy contract under No. 920667647. By issuing letter dated 25/04/1997, complainant asked reason from the opponent for extra premium. On 07/05/1997, opponent directed the complainant to remit second instalment of premium including extra premium of Rs. 668/-. It was informed that reason for extra premium would be communicated. On 04/06/1997, complainant was informed that extra premium was charged as per decision of Zonal Medical Referee. On this complainant informed to the Senior Branch Manager of LIC of India that his medical test reports were normal. Opponent no. 2 vide letter dated 20/08/1997 informed that his ECG report was the cause for charging extra premium. It is alleged that if customer is failing in medical examination, he has a right to be informed about it before charging extra premium. Complainant lost faith in LIC because of this incident. Act of charging extra premium was arbitrary, malicious. Hence, complainant has filed consumer complaint with a request for direction to waive extra premium. He also claimed compensation for damages.

3. Opponent resisted the claim by filing written version and specifically denied allegations of deficiency in service. It is submitted that proposal for policy was made by complainant under 'Asha Deep (II) Plan on 24/07/1996. Policy is issued only to the standard lives. Case of the complainant was referred to the higher office i.e. zonal office along with report submitted by complainant for their decision. Zonal Medical Referee had on the basis of special reports given a decision to accept the proposal with physical extra premium @ Rs. 4.45%. Information was given to the complainant by letter dated 26/11/1996. It was informed that the opponents are ready to accept the proposal of the complainant with physical extra of Rs. 4.45% and, if he is agreeable, then he should send consent for the same as well as pay balance amount of Rs. 668/- along with fresh proposal form and full medical report. Since the complainant had paid Rs. 668/- towards extra premium and also sent fresh proposal form with payment of extra premium, it was implied that the complainant had agreed for extra premium, hence, policy was issued with extra premium. Opponent in reply to the letter of complainant and in his personal visit to the office explained that the decision to charge him physical extra was made by their Z.U.S. on the basis of various medical reports. Complainant had given consent for extra premium and payment thereof was made by him. Hence the policy was issued to him. The demand raised by the complainant is unreasonable and illegal. It is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4. Both the parties led evidence by filing affidavits before the learned District For