The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a valid contract between the proposer and the insurance company for the claim to be entertained.

ORDER

1. The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Cuttack Divisional Office and Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Paradeep Branch are the appellants and they challenge the order of the District Forum, Jagatsinghpur passed in C.D. Case No. 295 of 1997 on 24.4.1998 allowing the complaint of the complainant Bharati Swain, widow of late Chakradhar Swain and directing the appellants, who were opposite parties before the District Forum, to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000, cost of Rs. 500 and assured policy value of Rs. 70,000 with 18% interest per annum from 13.3.1995 till final payment of the same to the complainant / respondent.

2. The brief fact giving rise to the complaint before the District Forum is stated as under:

The complainant is the widow of policy holder of policy No. BOC.637842 claimed before the opposite parties/appellants for assured sum of Rs. 70,000 after death of the policy holder her husband-Chakradhar Swain. Said Chakradhar Swain while was working under the contractor of Paradeep Port Trust took insurance policy for Rs. 70,000 with a contract payment of Rs. 1,225 and it was stipulated that there would be quarterly payment of premium and the first contract payment was made on 10.1.1995, for which the money receipt was granted by the office. The policy holder Chakradhar Swain died on 13.3.1995 much before payment of the second premium which was to be paid on 10.4.1995. After death of the policy holder husband of the complainant, she made several representations to the opposite parties / appellants for payment of the assured amount, but there was no response, for which she filed the complaint before the District Forum, Jagatsinghpur.

3. The District Forum noticed the opposite parties Life Insurance Corporation, who filed joint written version questioning the maintainability of the complaint and contended that the cause of action arose on 21.6.1995 and complaint was filed on 19.12.1997, which was after expiry of the period of limitation. It was further contended that Chakradhar Swain submitted the proposal on 15.1.1995, which was incomplete as per requirements of the Corporation and there were lot of over writings and interpolations in the important columns like place of birth, nature of age proof, sum proposed, mode and amount deposited, and the same were not properly rectified besides the signature of Chakradhar Swain in proposal No. 300 and the age extract in Form No. 4104-B along with respective transfer certificates did not tally in order to enable the opposite parties to accept the proposal of insurance. On 7.3.1995 a letter was issued to said Chakradhar Swain, but he did not rectify the defects and the letter was not responded to and as such the proposal could not be accepted and in the meantime the proposer Chakradhar Swain died.

4. This being the contention of the Corporation and since on scrutiny of the LCR and the proposal form we find absolutely nothing contrary to the contention of the opposite parties and there being over writings and interpolations in proposal form and the letter dated 7.3.1995 addressed to said Chakradhar Swain the proposer for submission of fresh proposal form was not responded to, we have no other option than to hold that the proposal was not at all accepted by the opposite parties, and the claim on the basis of the said proposal by his widow could not be attended to or complied with and the repudiation of the claim by the widow complainant had been rightly done in the facts and circumstances of the case. In this connection, the learned Counsel Mr. Mishra cites a decision reported in (2005) 1 CPJ 353 in the case of Jagraj @ Jagram Rathi v. LIC of India, wherein the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1984 SC 1014 and(1995) 3 CPJ 80 (NC), came to find in a similar case that, along with the proposal, the appellant paid an amount of Rs. 12,365 through c