BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE                        

Dated this the 7^th April 2017

PRESENT

  SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D     : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

   SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR                 : HON’BLE MEMBER

COMMON ORDERS IN

C.C. Nos. 343/2013, 164,165,166/2014 

 (CC No.343/2013 Admitted on 17.12.2013)

(CC. Nos. 164,165,166/2014 Admitted on 15.05.2014)

IN C.C.No.343/2013

Dr. Rohan Shetty,

S/o Dr. Bhasker Shetty,

Hindu, aged about 43 years,

R/o Nandavan Vyas Rao Lane,

Mangalore 575003.

IN C.C.No.164/2014

Dr. Kishna Shetty,

S/o Dr. Bhasker Shetty,

Hindu, aged about 39 years,

R/o Nandavan Vyas Rao Lane,

Mangalore  575003.

IN C.C.No.165/2014

Dr. Kiran Shetty,

S/o Dr. Bhasker Shetty,

Hindu, aged about 39 years,

R/o Nandavan Vyas Rao Lane,

Mangalore  575003.

IN C.C.No.166/2014

Dr. Roshan Shetty,

S/o Dr. Bhasker Shetty,

Hindu, aged about 43 years,

R/o Nandavan Vyas Rao Lane,

Mangalore  575003.

                                                              ….. COMPLAINANTS

(Advocate for the Complainants: Sri PJR)

VERSUS

1. The Chairman,

    L.I.C. of India,

    Yogaskshema No.21, J.B. Marg,

    Mumbai  400021.

2. The Branch Manager,

    L.I.C. of India,

    Branch No.2, Ibrose Complex, Jail Road,

    Mangalore  575003.

                                                                         …...........OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for the Opposite parties No.1 & No.2: Sri AKU)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:

I.       1. The above complaints filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against opposite party claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

     These cases are identical set of facts raised by both sides.  Hence by this common order all the cases to be disposed of against the same opposite party.

2.     The complainants of these cases claim on the proposal of opposite party dated 19.8.92.   On 28.8.1992 they took LIC policies as detailed in the table below.

On the representation that the policy will be converted into with profit benefit payment whole life after initial period of 5 years. Meaning with profits from 6^th year which is automatic known as definite conversion policy denoted as 27+ in the proposal.  The said proposal under plan 27+ was accepted by LIC of India and policy bonds were issued as mentioned in the table.  Recently complainants noticed that opposite party has not converted the policies into with profit benefit as per the scheme.  When they approached office of opposite party to the complaints issued written request of 5.1.2011 for converting the policy.  But by reply dated 24.1.2011 the Branch Office refused to convert the policy unless the difference of premium with interest paid.   Even though the premium amount of Rs.32,858/ was paid on 20.4.1201 for opposite party No.2 failed to convert the policy with profit benefit payment whole life.  The original policy bond was sent to opposite party No.2 as demanded and they have not returned to the complainants even after the legal notice. They sent reply without addressing any of the clarification raised by complainants. The development officer support term of the LIC by handed over of their own policies and respecting decisions.  When the complainants contacted one Mr P.S Ishwara Bhat another policy holder who also furnished the certified copies of the proposal of the policy and similar decisions.  In these 4 policies 27+has been stated and the special condition 19(2) has been noted which clearly reveal the conversion of the policy to with profit after 5 years.  As the demands of the complainants not been met seeks the reliefs claimed.

II.    In the version field by opposite party it is claimed the complainants having polices in question issued under the scheme plan 27 is admitted.  The features of the table 27 quote underlies relevant portion words are as under:

At the outset a whole life without profits policy is issued with premiums payable till aged 70.  At the end of five years from commencement, the policy holder has the option to convert it into an Endowment Assurance without profit or with profits payable at the age then to be chosen without having to undergo a fresh medical examination subject, however, to payment of a suitably increased premium from the date of such conversion.  If the policy is converted into an endowment assurance with profits, the policy participates in profits from the date of conversion, and the bonus will be at the rate applicable to Endowment Assurance.  If the policy is converted into an Endowment Assurance without profits, the policy is not entitled to any bonus.  If however, no option is exercised at the end of five years, the policy continues to be Whole Life without profits with premium ceasing at age 70.

2.     It is further claimed at the end of the 5 years the policy holder has the option to convert the policy without into with profit by opting for the fixed terms of the premium payment. The option given under policy while giving the proposal itself or at the end of the five years.  If the policy holder has not exercised these option even in the proposal form or after 5 years the policy will continue to be a whole life plan without profit with premium ceasing at 70 years age of the policy holder.  The allegation that policy has to with profit from the 6^th year which is automatic which is otherwise known as definite conversion policy in the proposal.  The LIC has not introduced any policy plan at the relevant time with the demarcation as 27+.  Allegation that the conversion of the policy is automatic is denied.  There is no policy as claimed by 27+ claimants on plan of complainant coming to known recently at the policy conversion are false.  Though there was a considerable delay by the complainant in submitting the request for conversion opposite parties considering the request as a very special case by the letter dated 6.4.11 intimated the complainant that the policy will be converted Endowment assurance with profits with the difference of the premium as per enhanced the premium with interest.  It was also intimated specifically stated in the letter Rs.32,852/ is payable towards difference of the premium and of Rs.33,398/ towards interest on the difference premium. The complainant have to pay totally have to pay Rs.66,256/ converting the policy plan into ‘endowment assurance with profit.

3.     It is further claimed that refund claim cannot be granted.  The complainants failed to remit the amount towards the interest for the delayed payment of difference premium.  As such opposite party No.2 is not in a position to convert the policy into with profit without receipt of full conversion amount.  Hence the policy has not been converted into with profits.  As complainant refused to receive the premium amount paid it is still with opposite party. The allegation that opposite party is liable to convert the policy with profit policy is not correct.  The complainants had to mention the term unit proposal form the changeable premium for the 5^th year was for conversion of the policy into with profits by mentioning specific term and clause 19(2) does not arise in the policy.  It is also contended in case the complainants remits the balance towards the interest the policy will be converted into with profit endowment policy.  Hence seeks dismissal of the complaints.

4.     In support of the above complainants in CC.No.343/2013 Dr. Rohan Shetty, CW1 and Mr. P.S. Chandrashekara (CW2) retired Development Officer, LIC of India, filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on them and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C35 as detailed in the annexure here below.  On behalf of the opposite parties Mrs. M. Jacintha Pais (RW1) Manager (L&HPF), also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on her and produced documents got marked at Ex.R1 to R3 as detailed in the annexure here below. 

5.     In support of the above complainants in CC.No.164/2014 Dr. Kishan Shetty, CW1 and Mr. P.S. Chandrashekara (CW2) retired Development Officer, LIC of India, filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on them and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C26 as detailed in the annexure here below.  On behalf of the opposite parties Mrs. M. Jacintha Pais (RW1) Manager (L&HPF), also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on her and produced documents got marked at Ex.R1 to R3 as detailed in the annexure here below. 

6.     In support of the above complainants in CC.No.165/2014 Dr. Kiran Sheet, CW1 and Mr. P.S. Chandrashekara (CW2) retired Development Officer, LIC of India, filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on them and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C28 as detailed in the annexure here below.  On behalf of the opposite parties Mrs. M. Jacintha Pais (RW1) Manager (L&HPF), also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on her and produced documents got marked at Ex.R1 to R3 as detailed in the annexure here below. 

7.     In support of the above complainants in CC.No.166/2014 Dr. Roshan Shetty, CW1 and Mr. P.S. Chandrashekara (CW2) retired Development Officer, LIC of India, filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on them and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C31 as detailed in the annexure here below.  On behalf of the opposite parties Mrs. M. Jacintha Pais (RW1) Manager (L&HPF), also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on her and produced documents got marked at Ex.R1 to R3 as detailed in the annexure here below. 

8.     In these cases though separate evidences were led by the parties, considering that they are almost identical these cases were taken up together for consideration.  Evidences referred in this common order are of CC.No.343/2013.

III.    In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

      The learned counsels for both sides filed notes of argument.  We have considered entire case file on record including evidence tendered by the parties and notes of argument of the party.  Our findings on the points are as under are as follows

               Point No.  (i): Affirmative

              Point No.  (ii): Negative

              Point No. (iii): As per the final order.

REASONS

IV.   POINTS No. (i):     That the policy was purchased by these complaints from opposite parties under plan 27 is undisputed.  Hence there is relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties.

2.     However the claim of complainants that the proposal form conversion of policy from 6^th year on wards was by denoting 27+ at the initial proposal stage as scheme is disputed by opposite party.  On the count there is no plan 27+ initiated by opposite parties which is tried to be put forth but by the claimants of these cases.  Hence there is serious dispute between the parties as contemplated under section 2 (1) (e) of the C P Act.  Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

POINTS No. (ii):       In these cases there were attempts made for the settlement out of the Fora but failed.  In fact when these complainants approached opposite party on noticing that the policy were not converted with profit opposite party did come forward with proposal as a very special case subject to complainants paying the difference in premium amounts with interest.  Even though complainants paid the difference in premium amounts suggested by opposite party they have refuse to pay the interest.

2.     In these cases the complainants relied on these proposal forms at the time of the proposal for the purchase of the policy issued by the opposite party under the plan. As seen from the copies of these proposal forms in the column pertaining to the term 27+ is mentioned it is handwritten.  

3.     In CC.No.343/2013 complainant produced Ex.C21 copy of a policy issued to one Smt. Meena Chandrashekar under plan 27+ as seen from this document in the respect of Meena Chandreshaaker plan 27+ was changed to 34.   Ex.C22 is another copy of a policy issued by opposite party No.2.  Ex.C23 is application form given by Chandrashekhar P.S changing policy from plan 27+ to 34 and in column 2 the table and term show as 24⁺34.  Ex.C24 is another application of Chandrashekhar P.S showing the table and term as 24⁺34.  Ex.C25 is the policy issued to P.S. Ishwara Bhat and the plan is mention as 27.30.    Ex.C26 is also policy of P.S. Ishwara Bhat under by mention the policy issued as in plan 27.30.   Ex.C27 is the copy of the policy issued to one P.S. Ishwara Bhat under plan 27.30. Ex.C28 another policy of P.S. Ishwara Bhat also contains the same mention of policy 27.30 and subsequently altered.  At Ex.C25, 26, 27, 28 addition of 30 or 34 in the plan column is handwritten where 27 is typed like other relevant entries like name, age, address of policy holder.  These policies does not contain the dates on which altered to either policy 30 or 34.  Ex.C29 is the copy of the application given for plan 27⁺30 (2).    Ex.C30 and Ex.C31 all copies of applications.  Ongoing through these polices though application filed and mention made the proposals application mentioning the table and the term of 27+ the copies of the polices produced which were issued by LIC office and subsequently altered mentioning a specific clause as seen from Ex.C21, C22, C27, C28 the clause in the first page itself read thus:

     On the written request of the proposer or his Assigns made at the end of 5 years from the date of commencement of the policy and before payment of the premium falling due immediately thereafter, provided the policy is then in full force the Corporation will convert the policy into an Endowment Assurance policy with profits or without profits payable at the end of the term specified in the written request at the rate and terms specified in the Convertible whole Life Assurance Scheme of the Corporation’s Prospectus or Tables of Rates in force on the date of the Policy.

Thus as seen from these policy there is a requirement of the policy holders to opt for changing in the plan from 27 to 30/34 whatever it is opted by policy holders.  But unless such change of plan is opted, as pointed out for defense, the claim of complainants that the policy automatically stand altered from 27+ in view of 27+  to plan 30 or 34 full life with benefits or otherwise cannot be accepted.  Option is on the policy holders i.e. the complainants of these cases to exercise that option but evidently that option was not exercised by none of these complainants on completion of the 5 year period of their respective policies. 

4.    The complainants filed chief examination of CW2 one Mr. P.S Chandrashekara the then retired Develop Officer of LIC of India who had approached these complainants and supported the claim of the complainants that the options available to the complainants were:

(i) To continue as whole life without profit

(ii) Whole Life with profit

(iii) Endowment policy with profit

(iv) Endowment policy without profit

 He also further mentioned that there were instruction from the head office at Udupi instructions were given which is mentioned in his affidavit evidence is as follows:

(i) For option number 1, just write 27

(ii) For option number 2, to show with profit, you Write plus with Table 27⁺

(iii) For option number 3, to show that it’s with profit, Write 27⁺ along with the endowment term you Opt for

 (iv)  For option 4, just write 27 and the endowment term that you opt for.

However this testimony of the Development Officer is not supported by any document.   Hence we are of the view that this statement of CW2 cannot be accepted.

5.     In the written argument filed on behalf of the complainants referring to testimony of RW1 the authorised person of opposite party LIC mentions in his affidavit evidence para 4 as made mention the following reads:

I say that the policy issued as per Table 27 denotes as, at the end of 5 years the policy holder has the following options i.e. to convert the policy into with profit or without profit plan by opting for the fixed term for premium payment.  I say that the policy holders can exercise the option given under the policy while giving the proposal itself or at the end of 5 years.  I say that if the policy holder has not exercised his option even in the proposal form or at the end of 5 years, the policy will continue to be a whole life plan without profit with premium ceasing at 70 years age of the policy holder. 

However ongoing through the above quoted portion of the testimony of the RW1 assuming for a moment that these complainants exercised their right to convert the policy after 5 years at the time of proposal forms itself by mentions 27+ they ought to have supplicated it by making payment of the additional premium amount and getting the required endorsement of the policy issued to them by LIC.  Both these were not done by the complainants.   Hence the contention on this count for complainants is not tenable.  In the circumstances we are of the view that the claim of the complainants though exercised for the conversion of polices to fixed as term policy as claimed by them in these complaints is not at all established.  

6.     Despite this after laps of another 5 year or so, when complainants wanted for conversion to the whole life assurance policy with profits or whatever opposite party did come forward to make exception in the case of these complainants by offering them to permit change over to the whole life assurance policy with profits subject to condition of payment of the arrears of premium with interest on arrears of the premium on completion of the 5^th year of the policy.  Even though the claimants did make payment of the arrears of premium they refused to pay the interest portion claimed by the opposite party i.e. LIC.  In our considered view when there is specific clause in the policy issued to these complainants by opposite party mention made in the clause as 27+ plan in no way, in our considered view, automatically get transferred to whole life policy with profit as claimed by the complainants.  When there is specific clause in the policy the contention of the claimants that representation made to them at the time of purchasing the policy by the agent and the LIC development officer who was examined in the case that there was instruction to mention as 27+ for automatic conversion cannot be accepted for the simple reason if the understanding of these claimants were automatic conversion without exercising option for conversion to any other plan permissible under the policy purchased by them, in the normal circumstance, these complainants ought to have made payment of the additional premium required to be paid by them.  But not only that the claimants did not exercise the option they also failed to pay interest on the arrears when opposite party came out with proposal to convert if arrears of higher premium with interest is paid.

7.     Hence we are of the view that the complainants failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Before we make mention that the relaxation the rules by LIC these claimants for converting the policies and receive the policy as exercised with interest on the arrears was not accepted by the claimants.   Hence we are of the opinion that the complainants failed to prove deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence we answer point No.2 in all these cases in the negative.

POINTS No. (iv):  In these 4 cases admitted the amount paid by these complainants towards arrears of premium which is not adjusted for the change of plan for want of payment of interest by the complainants is now with opposite party.   As such in fairness opposite party shall refund the amount to these complainants with interest at 9% per annum till the date of payment from the date of deposit. Hence these complaints are liable to be dismissed.  

2.     In these cases relief claimed were for conversion or alternating for refund of the entire premium paid by these claimants to these policies.  However, as seen from the policies issued to these claimants, when the option given as quoted earlier in this order is not exercised, the original plan 27 has to continue.   As such question of directing opposite party to refund the premium amount paid by these claimants as per plan 27 does not arise.  As such there is, in our opinion, no deficiency in service by opposite party towards those claimants.  Wherefore the following

ORDER 

                 The Complaint is dismissed.

2.     Keep original order in CC.343/2013 and copies of in CC. Nos. 164, 165, 165/2014.

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

     (Page No.1 to 16 directly typed by steno on computer system to the dictation of President revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 07^th April 2017)

ANNEXURE OF C.C.No.343/2013

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Dr. Rohan Shetty,

CW2  Mr. P.S. Chandrashekara, retired Development Officer, LIC of India

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex C1  6.4.2011  Letter from LIC of India.

Ex C2  5.5.2011  Letter from Dr. Rohan Shetty.

Ex C3  27.5.2011   Letter from LIC of India.

Ex C4  24.6.2011   Reply by Dr. Rohan Sheety for the above

Ex C5  16.7.2011  Reply by LIC for the above

Ex C6  1.8.2011   Letter by Dr. Rohan Shetty.

Ex C7  16.11.2011   Letter by Dr. Rohan Shetty & 3 others to LIC

Ex C8  11.2.2013   RTI information from LIC on clause 19(2).

Ex C9  8.11.2012    RTI information refusal letter .

Ex C10  4.6.2014   RTI information application by Dr. Rohan Shetty.

Ex C11 7.6.2014   RTI information Memo to the appellate authority of LIC

Ex C12  Office copy of the appeal Memo to the appellate authority of LIC

Ex C13 11.2.2013   RTI information on certain words of LIC.

Ex C14 1999   Manual for agents for LIC of India notarized pages  at 12,107 to 113 relating to Table 27.

Ex C15 19.8.1992   Copy of proposal No.9515695.

Ex C16  6.11.2013  Underwriting decision sheet obtained through RTI act with covering letter.

Ex C17 3.8.2012   Copy of advocates notice.

Ex C18 11.8.2012   Reply by LIC to the above.

Ex C19  Underwriting decision of policy No.61643355.

Ex C20   Underwriting decision of policy No.61643356.

Ex C21  Policy bond bearing No.61643355.

Ex C22  Policy bond bearing No.61643356.

Ex C23  Proposal form of policy No.61643355

Ex C24  Proposal form of policy No.61643356

Ex C25   Underwriting decision of policy No.61643750

Ex C26   Underwriting decision of policy No.61643755

Ex C27   Policy bond bearing No.61643750

Ex C28   Policy bond bearing No.61643755

Ex C29   Proposal form of policy No.61643750

Ex C30   Proposal form of policy No.61643755

Ex C31   22.7.2014 Reply received by complainant from appellate authority in RTI Appeal No.3/2014.15.

Ex C32  15.4.2011 Office copy of letter sent by the complainant to the LIC.

Ex C33   21.4.2011 Original letter sent by the LIC to the complainant.

Ex C34   18.4.2011 Acknowledgement by LIC on the local delivery Book.

Ex C35   4.9.2012 Information obtained under RTI from LIC.                                         

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1  Mrs. M. Jacintha Pais, Manager (L&HPF)

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

Ex.R1: Policy Review Slip

Ex.R2: Policy bond-Duplicate Attested Copy

Ex.R3: Extract of Plan No.27

ANNEXURE OF C.C.No.164/2014

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Dr. Kishan Shetty,

CW2  Mr. P.S. Chandrashekara, retired Development Officer, LIC of India

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex C1  6.4.2011   Letter from LIC of India.

Ex C2  16/19.9.2011  Letter from LIC.

Ex C3  20.1.2012   Letter from LIC to Dr. Kishan Shetty.

Ex C4  4.9.2012   RTI information from LIC

Ex C5  20.9.2012 Letter U/RTI from Dr. Kishan Shetty.

Ex C6 6.10.2012   RTI information to the above.

Ex C7  Underwriting decision of policy No.61643355

Ex C8  Underwriting decision of policy No.61643356

Ex C9  Policy bond bearing No.61643355

Ex C10  Policy bond bearing No.61643356

Ex C11 Proposal form of policy No.61643355 and 61643356

Ex C12  Underwriting decision of policy No.61643750 and 61643755

Ex C13 Policy bond bearing No.61643755

Ex C14 Proposal form of policy No.61643750

Ex C15 Proposal form of policy No.61643755

Ex C16 19.8.1992 copy of the proposal No.9520695

Ex C17 21.01.2013 Underwriting decision sheet obtained through RTI Act with covering letter.

Ex C18 13.01.2014 Copy of Advocate notice

Ex C19  30.01.2014 Reply by LIC to the above

Ex C20  28.06.2014 Notarised copy of Appeal Memo filed by the brother of the complainant before appellate authority.

Ex C21  22.7.2014 Reply received by complainant from appellate authority in RTI Appeal No.3/2014.15.

Ex C22  15.4.2011 Office copy of letter sent by the complainant to the LIC.

Ex C23  21.4.2011 Original letter sent by the LIC to the complainant.

Ex C24  18.4.2011 Acknowledgement by LIC on the local delivery Book

Ex C25   4.9.2012 Information obtained under RTI from LIC

Ex C26  1999   Manual for agents for LIC of India notarized pages  at 12,105,107 to 113 relating to Table 27.                                             

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1  Mrs. M. Jacintha Pais, Manager (L&HPF)

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

Ex.R1: Policy Review Slip

Ex.R2: Policy bond-Duplicate Attested Copy

Ex.R3: Extract of Plan No.27

ANNEXURE OF C.C.No.165/2014

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Dr. Kiran Sheet,

CW2  Mr. P.S. Chandrashekara, retired Development Officer, LIC of India

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex C1  5.1.2011   Letter to  LIC from Dr. Kiran Shetty.

Ex C2  24.1.2011  Reply from LIC.

Ex C3  6.4.2011   Letter from LIC to Dr. Kiran Shetty.

Ex C4  5.5.2011   Reply  to  LIC from Dr. Kiran Shetty.

Ex C5  16/19.9.2011  Letter from LIC to Dr. Kiran Shetty.

Ex C6 2.3.2012 Reply from  LIC to  Dr. Kiran Shetty.

Ex C7  Policy bond bearing No.61643750.

Ex C8  Underwriting decision of policy No. 61643355  and 61643356.

Ex C9  Policy bond bearing No.61643355

Ex C10  Policy bond bearing No.61643356

Ex C11 Proposal form of policy No.61643355

Ex C12  Proposal form of policy No. 61643356

 Ex C13  Under writing decision of policy No.61643750 and 61643755

 Ex C14  Policy bond bearing No.61643755

Ex C15 Proposal form of policy No. 61643750

Ex C16 Proposal form of policy No. 61643755

Ex C17 19.8.1992 copy of the proposal No.9521695 obtained through RTI Act

Ex C18 21.01.2013 Underwriting decision sheet obtained through RTI Act with covering letter.

Ex C19  10.01.2014 Copy of Advocate notice

Ex C20   20.01.2014 Reply by LIC to the above

Ex C21   Copy of  Poli

Ex C22  28.06.2014 Notarised copy of Appeal Memo filed by the brother of the complainant before appellate authority.

Ex C23  22.7.2014 Reply received by complainant from appellate authority in RTI Appeal No.3/2014.15.

Ex C24  15.4.2011 Office copy of letter sent by the complainant to the LIC.

Ex C25  21.4.2011 Original letter sent by the LIC to the complainant.

Ex C26 18.4.2011 Acknowledgement by LIC on the local delivery Book

Ex C27  4.9.2012 Information obtained under RTI from LIC

Ex C28 1999  Manual for agents for LIC of India notarized pages at 12,105,107 to 113 relating to Table 27.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1  Mrs. M. Jacintha Pais, Manager (L&HPF)

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

Ex.R1: Policy Review Slip

Ex.R2: Policy bond.Duplicate Attested Copy

Ex.R3: Extract of Plan No.27

ANNEXURE OF C.C.No.166/2014

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Dr. Roshan Shetty,

CW2  Mr. P.S. Chandrashekara, retired Development Officer, LIC of India

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex C1  6.4.2011  Letter from LIC to Dr. Roshan.

Ex C2  6.6.2011  Reply to the above by complainant.

Ex C3  28.7.2012 RTI information to Dr. Roshan Shetty.

Ex C4 17.9.2012 RTI information.

Ex C5  RTI information on copy of acceptance decision on Dr. Roshan Shetty

Ex C6 1999   Manual for agents for LIC of India notarized pages at 12,105,107 to 113 relating to Table 27.

Ex C7  Copy of Policy

Ex C8  Underwriting decision of policy No. 61643355.

Ex C9  Underwriting decision of policy No. 61643356

Ex C10  Policy bond bearing No.61643355

Ex C11 Policy bond bearing No.61643356

Ex C12  Proposal form of policy No.61643355

Ex C13 Proposal form of policy No. 61643356

 Ex C14 Underwriting decision of policy No.61643750 

Ex C15 Underwriting decision of policy No.61643755

Ex C16  Policy bond bearing No.61643750.

Ex C17 Policy bond bearing No.61643755

Ex C18 Proposal form of policy No. 61643750

Ex C19  Proposal form of policy No. 61643755

Ex C20   19.8.1992 copy of the proposal No.9521695

Ex C21, Ex C22 21.01.2013 Underwriting decision sheet obtained through RTI Act with   covering letter.

Ex C23  10.01.2014 Copy of Advocate notice

Ex C24  20.01.2014 Reply by LIC to the above

Ex C25  Copy of  Policy

Ex C26 28.06.2014 Notarised copy of Appeal Memo filed by the brother of the complainant before appellate authority.

Ex C27 22.7.2014  Reply received by complainant from appellate authority in RTI Appeal No.3/2014.15.

Ex C28 15.4.2011 Office copy of letter sent by the complainant to the LIC.

 Ex C29 21.4.2011 Original letter sent by the LIC to the complainant.

Ex C30 18.4.2011  Acknowledgement by LIC on the local delivery Book

Ex C31 4.9.2012  Information obtained under RTI from LIC                                               

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1  Mrs. M. Jacintha Pais, Manager (L&HPF)

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

Ex.R1: Policy Review Slip

Ex.R2: Policy bond Duplicate Attested Copy

Ex.R3: Extract of Plan No.27

Dated:  07.04.2017                           PRESIDEN