ORDER (Per: Justice Irshad Hussain, President) Appellant – Insurance company filed this appeal against the order dated 14.07.2008 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar, allowing consumer complaint No. 161/2007 with cost of Rs. 2,000/- and awarding compensation of the insured sum of Rs. 50,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till payment, by way of benefit arising out of Jeevan Kishor Policy taken by the complainant in the name of his minor son Rohit on 09.06.2004. The District Forum rejected the stand of the insurance company that since child Rohit died on 04.09.2005 before the deferred date 09.06.2006, the policy stand cancelled and in view thereof, under the terms and conditions of the policy, the sum of money equal of all the premium paid without any deduction whatsoever, has been paid to the complainant and, as such, the complainant was not entitled to insured sum under the policy. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered their submissions in the light of the facts of the case and the legal aspects of the matter in issue. Table-102 of “Jeevan Kishor With Profits Policy” provide that risk under such policy will commence either two years after the date of commencement or from the policy anniversary, falling immediately after the completion of seven years of age, whichever is later. The period starting from the date of commencement of the policy to the date of commencement of risk, will be known as the “waiting period”. Admittedly, the policy commenced on 09.06.2004 and the deferred date after two years of the commencement was 09.06.2006. Child Rohit died on 04.09.2005. Before the death, the child had attained the age of seven years on 02.02.2005 and on that basis, the District Forum accepted the complainant’s case that on account of attaining the age of seven years by the child, the sum insured under the policy became payable by the Insurance company. The District Forum misinterpreted the above condition, as contained in Table 102, by virtue of which, the risk was to commence under the policy only on the deferred date, i.e., 09.06.2006, which was the latter date as against the policy anniversary date 09.06.2005, falling immediately after the completion of seven years of age on 02.02.2005. The District Forum misinterpreted the above condition, as contained in Table 102, by virtue of which, the risk was to commence under the policy only on the deferred date, i.e., 09.06.2006, which was the latter date as against the policy anniversary date 09.06.2005, falling immediately after the completion of seven years of age on 02.02.2005. In interpreting the above provision, the District Forum incorrectly considered the argument on behalf of the complainant that the policy condition was not clear and, thus, being capable of more than one interpretation, the one, which was beneficial to the consumer, need to be adopted and further adverted to the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Smt. Prakash Devi; 2008 (2) CPR 243 (NC), pressed into service on behalf of the complainant. 3. It need to be sated that similar argument was advanced before us by the learned counsel for the complainant – respondent, which is not at all tenable, even on the face of brochure, which do not contain the above condition of Table 102 correctly and which has been placed on record with the affidavit of the complainant. The brochure do not appear to be an authenticated publication of the insurance company, and therefore, the term and condition of Table 102, as part of the policy alone, could be seen and interpreted so far as the application of the same, was to the facts of the case. Further, the learned counsel for the insurance company rightly placed reliance on the decision of Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India and another Vs. Pandit Gopal Katkade; IV (2008) CPJ 287 and wherein, the above condition of Table 102 has been interpreted in the manner, as has been noted by us above. There can also be no gain saying that the provision of Table 102 being clear and unambiguous, there was at all no occasion to say that it was capable of more than one interpretation, as claimed by the complainant and as accepted by the District Forum. 4. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the complainant, on account of death of his son Rohit on the date stated above, was only entitled to be paid the amount of the premiums deposited and which amount had been paid to him by the insurance company. 4. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the complainant, on account of death of his son Rohit on the date stated above, was only entitled to be paid the amount of the premiums deposited and which amount had been paid to him by the insurance company. The complainant was not entitled to the insured sum and his claim was rightly repudiated by the insurer and there being no deficiency in service on the part of the insurer, the complainant was liable to be dismissed. The appeal, thus, succeed and is fit to be allowed. 5. Appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 14.07.2008 of the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 161/2007 is dismissed. No order as to costs.