STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Appeal No.A/22/565 (Arising against the order dated 23/06/2022 passed by the D.F.Solapur in CC/21/26)

Shri Santosh Pundalik Sonkar R/at Post -C/o.Keshavnagar Police Line Building no.31, Room no.154, ...... Appellant/org.complainant Solapur 413 003 Versus Branch Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India ………Respondent/org.OP at 95-Respondent, Branch manager Chandak Icon, 3^rd floor, Above Big Bazaar Solapur 413 001 BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member PRESENT: Advocate Rajesh Jadhav for appellant Advocate Bindu Jain for respondent FINAL ORDER (Dt.13/03/2025)

Per Hon’ble Vijay C.Premchandani – Member

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated

23/06/2022 passed in the original Consumer Complaint no.CC/21/26 by the Ld.District Consumer Commission, Solapur.

The brief facts of the case are as under:-

2. It is contended by the appellant/org. complainant that he has joined as Constable as on 10/06/2005 in Maharashtra Police. The Appellant further contended that, the Appellant is a policy holder Bearing Policy No. 952694613, 957667565, 990678649 of Life Insurance Corporation of India i.e. Respondent. The said policies were issued on 21/02/2007, 18/02/2011 & 30/09/2013 which is not disputed fact. As per the terms and conditions of the said policies in case of accidental dependency arrived then no further installments are required to be paid by appellant same will be waived by the Respondent and the Policy Benefits will be remain as it is.

3. The Appellant further contended that the Appellant joined as Constable on

10/06/2005 in Maharashtra Police after that, the Appellant was promoted as Police Naik on 21/06/2014. Further, the Appellant contended that, the Appellant was giving the exam/Under training of Quick Response Team. During the said examination the Appellant observed severe pain in his Lower Body and tingling in his feet. The Appellant thereafter was admitted to Ashwini Hospital, Solapur. Dr. Anand Mudkanna and Dr. Vitthal Krushna took Appellant's MRI report and said that the Appellant's Spinal Cord has been Damaged/Injured.

4. The Appellant further contended that, in the year 2016 itself the appellant has informed to the Respondent about the said incidence and thereafter the Respondent by its letter dated 06/05/2016 repudiated the disability claim of the Appellant. The Appellant further contended that, while repudiating the claim of the appellant the Respondent has not assigned single justifiable reason.

5. The Appellant further contended that, during the course of treatment and as per revised norms of the Government of India this Appellant received permanent disability certificate bearing No.MH3030619850005657 dated 01/04/2019 and also received unique disability Identity card which mention that the appellant is 100% disable.

6. The Appellant further states that, upon receipt of the said disability certificate the appellant again by it's letter/application 20/09/2019 and described the entire incident of accident caused to the appellant and present situation of his service wherein by letter bearing outward No. क± २(३) वेतन Öतिमत २०१५/४४१३ dated 01/07/2015. The payment of the Appellant was stayed and thereafter he personally visited to the police commissioner with senior officers and described the entire scenario and thereby considering the appellant case on humanitarian ground the commissioner of Police by its order bearing no.

Dated 15/07/2015, Appellant's services क¢2(2)/1231/ Sonkar/Hajar/4602/15 were re-instated and was assigned with light duties. The Appellant further contended that, in spite of the re-appointment the appellant is not in position to attend his duties, appellant is not in the position to move on his legs, appellant is not in control of his natural activities. Therefore, the Appellant submits that the Appellant is getting payment without attending his job only on humanitarian ground. With