ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President. - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 24.12.2016 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 62/2014 title Shankar Singh v. Marketing Manager LIC of India & Ors . Brief facts of consumer complaint: 2. Shankar Singh filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant obtained insurance policy No. 151454367 dated 15.03.2004 from opposite parties. It is pleaded that maturity date was 15.03.2014. It is further pleaded that complainant paid all the amount of premium to the opposite parties regularly till the maturity date. It is further pleaded that complainant was entitled to maturity amount to the tune of Rs. 62500/-(Sixty two thousand five hundred) but opposite parties offered to pay Rs. 25544/-(Twenty five thousand five hundred forty four). It is pleaded that complainant requested the opposite parties to pay the entire amount but opposite parties did not pay entire amount and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief to the effect that opposite parties be ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 62500/-(Sixty two thousand five hundred) i.e. maturity amount. In addition complainant sought relief of Rs. 30000/-(Thirty thousand) as costs of litigation. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 to 3 pleaded therein that present complaint is not maintainable. It is pleaded that opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service. It is further pleaded that complainant is entitled for Rs. 32909/-(Thirty two thousand nine hundred nine) as maturity amount and is not entitled to the amount of Rs. 62500/-(Sixty two thousand five hundred). It is pleaded that complainant has no cause of action to file consumer complaint and dispute does not fall under Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is pleaded that complainant has suppressed the material facts from Consumer Forum. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 4. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the complaint. Learned District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered opposite parties No. 1 & 2 to pay Rs. 62500/-(Sixty two thousand five hundred) to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of maturity till the entire amount is paid or realized. In addition learned District Forum ordered opposite parties No. 1 & 2 to pay punitive compensation of Rs. 62500/-(Sixty two thousand five hundred) to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of maturity till the entire amount is paid or realized. In addition learned District Forum ordered opposite parties No. 1 & 2 to pay punitive compensation of Rs. 5000/-(Five thousand) to complainant. In addition learned District Forum further ordered opposite parties No. 1 & 2 to pay costs to the tune of Rs. 5000/-(Five thousand) to complainant. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum opposite parties No. 1 & 2 filed present appeal before State Commission. 5. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of appellants and co-respondent No. 1 and we have also perused entire record carefully. 6. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellants is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal? 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 7. Complainant filed affidavit annexure-C1 in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent obtained policy No. 151454367 dated 15.03.2004 from the opposite parties No. 1 & 2. There is recital in affidavit that maturity date was 15.03.2014. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent paid all the installments and opposite parties offered the payment of Rs. 25544/-(Twenty five thousand five hundred forty four) only despite the fact that deponent was entitled for maturity amount to the tune of Rs. 62500/-(Sixty two thousand five hundred). There is recital in affidavit that opposite parties No. 1 & 2 committed deficiency in service. 8. Complainant also filed affidavit of Desh Raj annexure-C2 in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that Sheela Devi opposite party No. 3 is the agent of opposite parties No. 1 & 2. There is further recital in affidavit that Sheela Devi agent of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 approach the complainant and complainant obtained the insurance policy on the assurance that an amount of Rs. 62500/-(Sixty two thousand five hundred) would be paid to complainant on maturity date. There is recital in affidavit that opposite parties No. 1 & 2 offered to pay a sum of Rs. 25544/-(Twenty five thousand five hundred forty four) only and refused to pay an amount of Rs. 62500/-(Sixty two thousand five hundred) due to complainant. 9. 62500/-(Sixty two thousand five hundred) would be paid to complainant on maturity date. There is recital in affidavit that opposite parties No. 1 & 2 offered to pay a sum of Rs. 25544/-(Twenty five thousand five hundred forty four) only and refused to pay an amount of Rs. 62500/-(Sixty two thousand five hundred) due to complainant. 9. Learned advocate appeared on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 tender in evidence documents annexures-OP1 to OP3 including proof affidavit filed alongwith the version. 10. Opposite party No. 3 Sheela Devi filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is authorized agent of opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant is only entitled to the amount offered by opposite parties No. 1 & 2. There is further recital in affidavit that amount claimed by the complainant is due only on death case and is not due in survival of insured case. There is recital in affidavit that complainant is not entitled for amount to the tune of Rs. 62500/-(Sixty two thousand five hundred) on survival basis. There is recital in affidavit that opposite parties No. 1 & 2 did not commit any deficiency in service. 11. Submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that complainant is legally entitled for a sum of Rs. 25544/-(Twenty five thousand five hundred forty four) and is not entitled to a sum of Rs. 62500/-(Sixty two thousand five hundred) on maturity is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused the insurance policy annexure-C3 placed on record. It is proved on record that on dated 15.03.2004 complainant obtained LIC''s Jeevan Saral policy from opposite parties No. 1 & 2. It is also proved on record that maturity date mentioned in the insurance policy was 15.03.2014. It is also proved on record that in insurance policy placed on record annexure-C3 amount of maturity has been mentioned as Rs. 62500/-(Sixty two thousand five hundred) in the insurance policy after partial surrender if any alongwith corresponding loyalty addition if any. It is proved on record that policy holder was survived on date of maturity. It is held that policy holder is legally entitled for maturity amount as per terms and conditions of insurance policy annexure-C3. It is held that terms and conditions mentioned in the insurance policy annexure-C3 are binding upon both parties. It is proved on record that policy holder was survived on date of maturity. It is held that policy holder is legally entitled for maturity amount as per terms and conditions of insurance policy annexure-C3. It is held that terms and conditions mentioned in the insurance policy annexure-C3 are binding upon both parties. See CPR 2016(4) 487 NC Amandeep Kaur v. DLF Universal Ltd. & other . 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that order passed by learned District Forum is in accordance with law and in accordance with proved facts is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant is legally entitled for maturity benefit as per condition mentioned in insurance policy annexure-C3 qua surviving policy holder because death benefit was available only if insured dies while insurance policy was in force. See 2018(1) CPJ 286 NC Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sahadev Chandra Roy & other . In view of above stated facts point No. 1 is decided accordingly. Point No. 2: Final Order 13. In view of findings upon point No. 1 above appeal is partly allowed. It is ordered that complainant would be entitled to sum equal to maturity sum assured as mentioned in insurance policy annexure-C3 in force after partial surrender if any alongwith corresponding loyalty addition if any as mentioned in insurance policy annexure-C3. Order of learned District Forum dated 24.12.2016 announced in consumer complaint No. 62/2014 is modified to this extent only. Insurance policy annexure-C3 issued by opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 will form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.