Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/12/31

T. Sudarshan Reddy S/o T. Kishta Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Mahabubnagar and others - Opp.Party(s)

Sri M. Chennaiah Goud

28 Feb 2013

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Thursday, the 28^th day of February, 2013 

 

 Present:- Sri P. Sridhara Rao, B.Sc., LL.B., President

                Smt. D. Nirmala, B.Com., LL.B.,Member

 

C.C.NO. 31  Of   2012

 

Between:-

T. Sudarshan Reddy S/o T. Kishta Reddy, age: 39 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o H.No.1-3-158/7, Station Road, Opp: LIC Office lane, Rajendranagar, Mahabubnagar.

       … Complainant

And

1. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Jeevan Jyothi, P.B.No.10, D.No.1-6-17, Station road, Mahabubnagar.

 

2. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, City Branch 21, Barkathpura, Hyderabad.

 

3. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, City Branch 8, Jeevan Sagar, behind NTR Stadium, Indira Park, Hyderabad.

 

4. The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash, 5/9/21, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad-500063.

 

                                                                                     … Opposite Parties

 

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 14-02-2013 in the presence of Sri M. Chennaiah Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar on behalf of the complainant and Sri K. Pratap Kumar, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum made the following:   

O R D E R

 (Sri P. Sridhara Rao, President)

 

1.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay sum amount of Rs.833/- per month from November, 2010 and Rs.40,000/- towards return of sum assured (40%) from OP-2 and not demand return of amount of Rs.52,487/- and pay surrender amount from OP-3 for policy bearing No.644512830 and 602465751 along with interest             @ 36% p.a. from November, 2010, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for putting him mental and financial suffering and for deficiency of service and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complaint.  

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that:- The complainant while doing a private job at Hyderabad he had taken one money back policy bearing No.644512830 commencing from 15-3-2000 for a period of 15 years for an assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from OP-2. Likewise, the complainant had also taken another money plus policy bearing No.602465751 commencing from 25-4-2007 OP-3 for an assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 15 years from OP-3. From the commencement of both the policies, the complainant started paying regularly the requisite premium amount as per the terms and conditions of the two policies. In the meanwhile, the complainant unfortunately met with a road accident on 1-6-2007 and sustained permanent disability. Then the complainant immediately reported the matter to both the OPs.2 and 3 for payment of the benefits under EPDB (Extended Permanent Disability Benefits) scheme and also submitted the permanent disability certificate as choosed by OPs.2 and 3. After considering the application and making enquiry and confirming the disability sustained by him, the OP-2 paid him a total sum of Rs.34,370/- by way of a cheque through a covering letter towards the benefits and later on continued the payments @ Rs.833/- per month till November, 2010.  Similarly, the OP-3 having received the letter from the complainant along with the medical bills and disability certificate and after satisfaction paid him a sum of Rs.52,487/- by way of a cheque through a covering letter towards EPDB benefit. It is further averred that after two months the complainant received a letter from OP-3 demanding to refund the cheque amount of Rs.52,487/- paid to him under EPDB scheme on the ground that the money plus policy obtained by him is not a cover under the EPDB scheme and also asked him to surrender the policy bond. The complainant thereupon surrendered the policy bond as per the request made by the OP-3 but not refunded the money. At that time, when the complainant not received the regular EPDB from OP-3 and on his enquiry by phone the OP-2 informed him that he stopped the payment of EPDB and transferred the same to OP-3 on instructions. Such act of stoppage of payment of EPDB and transferring the same to OP-3 without knowledge of the complainant amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant obtained the said two policies from the OPs., for his future family necessities. After the accident sustaining permanent disability the complainant completely became bedridden and became dependent upon the others. The above said attitude of the opposite parties caused him much mental agony and financial stress. Thus the present complaint is filed for the aforesaid relief.

3. The opposite party No.1 filed the counter denying the material averments of the complaint and stated that the complainant cannot expect to receive such benefits to the policy which do not provide for such benefit, that the opposite parties are having every right to recover those amounts which were paid wrongly or irregularly, and that the opposite parties will have lean over any other amounts payable to the complainant to the tune of dues of complainant and having every right to adjust the same. It is further stated that the complainant is estopped from claiming the said amount having surrendered the policy by realizing his fault and having given consent vide his letter dated 24-1-2011 for the adjustment of the amount received by him wrongly and therefore the opposite parties have not resorted to any unfair trade practice and there is no deficiency of service towards the complainant and thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.   

4. The opposite party Nos.2 to 4 filed a memo adopting the counter filed by the opposite party No.1.

5. Thereupon the complainant in support of his claim filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-15. On the other hand, the OP-1 in support of their contentions filed the affidavit evidence while the same is adopted by the OPs.2 to 4 by way of a memo and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-6.    

6.  The points for determination now are: 

 

    (i)Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in 

          rendering service to the complainant as alleged?

    (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for by him?

    (iii)  To what effect? 

7. Point Nos.1 and 2:- The undisputed facts in the case are that the complainant obtained one money back policy covered under the original of Ex.A-1 from OP-2 and the other money plus policy from OP-3 covered under Ex.B-1 the original of Ex.A-2. While both the policies are in force, the complainant unfortunately met with a road accident on 1-6-2007 and sustained permanent disability. It is also an admitted fact that upon receipt of the intimation from the complainant about his sustaining permanent disability in the road accident, the OP-2 started making payment to the complainant towards the EPDB benefits covered under the scheme deducting a part of the amount. Likewise, on receipt of similar intimation from the complainant about his sustaining permanent disability in the road accident, the OP-3 also made the payment in question towards the benefits under EPDB scheme. From that stage onwards, the present dispute arose between both the parties.       

8. The contention of the OP-2 is that as per the terms and conditions of the policy they are regularly paying the EPDB benefits to the complainants with certain deduction of the amount in question but they made such deduction of the amount and transferred the same to OP-3 on receipt of the instructions from their department basing on the consent letter Ex.B-6/A-12, as such there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on its part.

9. The contention of OP-3 is that on receipt of the application from the complainant about his sustaining permanent disability in the road accident, they made such payment of Rs.52,487/- in question to the complainant towards EPDB benefits but subsequently on verification of the policy when it came to the light that the said policy is only a money plus policy and does not cover the EPDB benefit and having realized the mistake committed by them they addressed letters after the letters under Exs.A-9, A-10 and B-3 till 7-12-2010 demanding the complainant to refund the said amount wrongly paid to him, that thereupon the complainant himself came and given consent letter Ex.B-6/A-12 dated 24-1-2011 surrendering the policy with a request to adjust the amount received by him with the amount to be paid to him on surrendering the policy basing on which the balance due amount after the surrender value of the policy was got transferred from the amount payable to the complainant by OP-2, and as the same has been done with the consent of the complainant through his letter Ex.B-6/A-12 there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on their part as alleged by the complainant and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

10. On this aspect, the contention of the complainant is that he had given such consent letter Ex.B-6/A-12 to enable OP-3 to adjust the said amount received by him from the surrender value of the policy but not given any consent to OP-2 for deducting and transferring the EPDB benefit to OP-3 and also not authorized to OP-3 for getting the EPDB benefit amount from OP-2 towards the due if any, as such there is a deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in rendering service to him as alleged and therefore he is entitled to the relief sought for by him. But we are unable to agree with the said contention for the reason that the complainant himself given such consent letter Ex.B-6/A-12 to OP-3 enabling the OP-3 to adjust the amount excess paid to him. So, the said consent letter Ex.B-6/A-12 is the crucial document for considering the rival contentions. A perusal of the recitals of Ex.B-6/A-12 clearly establishes that the complainant had clearly explained his situation in not paying the   amount received by him by OP-3 and also to continue his policy. Through the said consent letter the complainant also brought to the notice of OP-3 that he is also having another policy with OP-2 and also about the stoppage of his EPDB benefit by OP-2. At the same time, the complainant in the complaint itself clearly admitted that when OP-2 stopped certain payment of EPDB benefit to him, he came to know through OP-2 by phone that the said amount was transferred to OP-3 towards the adjustment of the due from him to OP-3. It is also the specific contention of the opposite parties that as per the terms and conditions of the policies and the guidelines given to them the opposite parties are having every right to recover those amounts which were paid wrongly or irregularly and they will have lean over any other amounts payable to the complainant to the tune of his dues and so also having every right to adjust the same. As stated above, the policy obtained from OP-3 is only a money plus policy which does not entitle the complainant to receive any EPDB benefit. In the case on hand, the payment in question made by OP-3 to the complainant is only towards the EPDB benefit. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant, after receiving the letters of the letters only went and gave such consent letter and surrendered the policy for adjustment of the amount due by him and so also mentioning about the other policy taken by him from OP-2 and the stoppage of EPDB benefits to him by OP-2. As contended by the complainant OP-2 is regularly paying the EPDB benefits to him except the said deducted amount.  In that regard, OPs.2 and 3 have clearly explained through their counter and the affidavit evidence about the manner in which the due amount was realized from the complainant. As per the counter and the affidavit evidence filed by the opposite parties, it is their contention that they are having every right to recover those amounts which were paid wrongly or irregularly and they will have lean over any other amounts payable to the complainant to the tune of his dues and so also having every right to adjust the same. The said part of the evidence of the opposite parties is neither denied nor disputed by the complainant at anywhere either in the complaint or through his affidavit evidence. In the absence of any such proof contrary to the evidence of OPs and in view of the said circumstances, the complainant having himself given such consent letter to OP-3 now he cannot go back and say that he had not given any such consent for deduction of the amount from the amount to be paid to him towards EPDB benefit. Hence we find that there is no force in the contention of the complainant. Hence, it can clearly be said that the complainant failed to establish his claim against the opposite parties on the ground of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged, as such the complainant is not entitled to the relief sought for by him and thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Both the points are answered accordingly in favour of the opposite parties and against the complainant.  

 

11. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is dismissed. In view of the facts and circumstances, both the parties have to bear their own costs.  

      Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 28^th day of February, 2013.    

 

    I agree                                                                                                             

 

 MEMBER                                                                                   PRESIDENT                       

  Appendix of evidence

      List of Witness examined

 

On behalf of Complainant:                          On behalf of Opposite Parties:   

- Nil -                                                                        - Nil -

                                       

List of documents marked:-

On behalf of Complainant:-    

 

Ex.A-1: Photostat copy of Policy Schedule, dt.25.3.2000.

Ex.A-2: Photostat copy of Policy Schedule, dt.2.5.2007.

Ex.A-3: Photostat copy of Medical Certificate, dt.19.6.2008.

Ex.A-4: Photostat copy of Letter, dt.5.8.2008.

Ex.A-5: Photostat copy of Form of Endorsement, dt.19.3.2009.

Ex.A-6: Photostat copy of Letter, dt.20.3.2009.

Ex.A-7: Photostat copy of Letter, dt.24.4.2010.

Ex.A-8: Photostat copy of Letter, dt.21.9.2010.

Ex.A-9: Photostat copy of Letter, dt.2.11.2010.

Ex.A-10: Photostat copy of Letter, dt.24.11.2010.

Ex.A-11: Photostat copy of Letter, dt.6.1.2011.

Ex.A-12: Photostat copy of Letter, dt.24.1.2011.  

Ex.A-13: Photostat copy of Letter, dt.12.1.2011.  

Ex.A-14: Photostat copy of Letter, dt.17.2.2011.  

Ex.A-15: Photostat copy of Letter, dt.18.2.2012.  

On behalf of OPs:        

Ex.B-1: Original Policy Bond, dt.2.5.2007.  

Ex.B-2: Copy of Letter, dt.2.11.2010.

Ex.B-3: Copy of Letter, dt.7.12.2010.

Ex.B-4: Returned Envelop Cover.

Ex.B-5: Copy of Letter, dt.18.2.2012.

Ex.B-6: Copy of Letter, dt.24.1.2011.                

 

                                                                        PRESIDENT                                                                                                   

Copy to:-

 

1. Sri M. Chennaiah Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar on behalf of the complainant. 2. Sri K. Pratap Kumar, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties.