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

Dated this the 24^th January 2017

PRESENT

  SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D       : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

  SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR                    : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDER IN

C.C.No.362/2012

(Admitted on 28.11.2012)

Dr. P. Ganesh Prasad,

S/o K. Gopalakrishna Upadyaya,

Hindu, Aged about 35 years,

Residing at Vidhya Nagar,

Vittal Kasba, Vittal,

Bantwal.

                                                           ….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: DIB)

VERSUS

1. The Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

    Sri. Jeevan Krishna,

    Represented by Manager (CRM)

    LIC Divisional Officer,

    Ajjarakadu, Udupi,

2. The Branch Manager,

    LIC of India,

    Jodumarga, Bantwal,

3. Sri. V. Monappa Shetty,

    Agent of LIC (Code No.00647629)

    C/o Spandana Xerox Centre,

    Vittal, Bantwal.

4. Sri. Gokul Shet,

    Development Officer of LIC (Code No.0299620)

    Residing at Gokul House,

    Aramane Road, Vittal,

    Bantwal.

                                                                            …..........OPPOSITE PARTY

(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 & No.2: Sri. MSKP)

(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.3 & No.4: Sri. RPS)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MEMBER

SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR:

1. 1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against opposite parties claiming certain reliefs to refund of Rs.55,202/ with interest at 15% from the date of respective payment of the four installment amount and to pay Rs.30,000/ towards compensation with interest at 15% p.a. with cost.

2.    In support of the above complainants Dr. P. Ganesh Prasad filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C6 as detailed in the annexure.   On behalf of the opposite parties Mrs. M. Jacintha Pais (RW1) Manager, L & HPF, LIC of India, also filed affidavit evidence and Mr. Gokul Shet (RW2) Development Officer of LIC also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on them and produced documents got marked at Ex.R1 to R4 as detailed in the annexure here below.

              The brief facts of the case are as under:  

     On perusal of the complaint and the version of the parties we understood, this dispute is with regard to an insurance policy called JEEVAN ADHAR taken for the benefit of the handicapped dependent, opposite parties not properly explained the benefit to the handicapped and false representation with regard to the benefit of the policy. The complainant alleges that, the Opposite parties no 3 and no 4 being known to the father of the complainant misrepresented about the benefit of the policy to the handicapped dependent, also suggested to take the policy in the name of the complainant as the father is of the age of 62 years. On knowing the real facts from another LIC agent,  that the benefit under the policy taken is not as impressed as represented by the opposite party no 3 & 4, the complainant approached the opposite party no 2 but the opposite party no 1 & 2 instead of responding to the grievances of the complainant abused him and given evasive answer. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties. the opposite party no 1 & 2 contends that the policy was taken for the benefit of the handicapped and the complainant is an educated doctor and after convinced about the benefit and understanding the terms of the policy has opted to obtain the said policy. The nature of the policy is annuity payment policy which cannot be converted into any other policy. The Opposite parties no 3 and no 4 contended on the same line as opposite party no 1 & 2 and said the complainant has taken the income tax benefit and for that purpose only the complainant has purchased such a policy and denied any kind of misrepresentation or cheating from their part. These are the disputed facts in resolving it we considered the following

POINTS FOR ADJUDICATION

     We have taken into consideration the evidence of the parties and also documents produced by the each side. The admitted  facts are the insurance policy called JEEVAN ADHAR for the benefit of the handicapped is being purchased by the complainant from the Opposite parties through the opposite party agents Opposite parties no 3 and no 4 who were known to the complainant’s father. It is denied by all the opposite parties that there is mis representation on the part of them and also the opposite party no 1 & 2  denied the abusing of the complainant and gave evasive answer to him when he approached them. It is not disputed that the policy is having income tax benefit for the premium paid. on considering these facts of admission and the denials we considered the following points for adjudication in deciding this dispute.

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986?
2. Whether the complainant proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the benefit prayed for?
4. What order?

     On careful consideration of the evidence produced and the documents in the file we have taken into account the notes and oral arguments for the rival parties we answered the above points as under:

1. In the affirmative.
2. In the negative.
3. In the negative.
4. As per delivered order.

REASON

POINT NO 1: We have observed in the insurance policy document No 625929159 commenced on 05.042008 issued by the opposite party no 1 & 2 that it is taken in the name of the DR P Ganesh Prasad who is the complainant herein. This established the relation of the consumer and the service provider between the complainant and the Opposite parties No 1 & 2.  As for as the Opposite parties no 3 and no 4 is concern, they are the agents of the opposite party no 1 & 2 and hence they arrayed as parties. Also it is noted from the complaint pleading that there is main allegation against these Opposite parties of deficiency in service because of misrepresentation in the capacity of agent of the opposite party no 1 & 2. In our view  the Opposite parties no 3 and no 4 are necessary parties in resolving this dispute. In our opinion the complainant is a consumer to the opposite party no 1 & 2 and not for the Opposite parties no 3 and no 4 but they are the necessary parties. Hence the answer of the point no 1 in the affirmative.

POINT NO 2 & 3:  The complainant in Para 2 of the complaint states that 

 2.     The main allegation the complainant against the opposite party no 1 & 2 in para 6 of the complaint is that, “the insurance policy for which the complainant has joined., the amount will get after his death and if that is so, at the time either his disabled brother may not survive or the complainant will not get an amount to the expenses of his brother and as such, the said policy is only beneficial to the Opposite parties. when the complainant approached the opposite party no 1 & 2 with this grievance the opposite party no 1 & 2 instead of responding to the grievances of the complainant abused him and given evasive answer.

 3.    Against the Opposite parties no 3 and no 4, the complainant alleges that “the Opposite parties no 3 and no 4  are the approved authorized agent and development officer of the opposite party no 1.The father of the complainant is well known to the Opposite parties no 3 and no 4 and taking advantage of the said fact, they have not only approached the father of the complainant several times but also visited the house in that connection and insisted to take the LIC policy. The opposite party no 3 & 4 have told to the father of the complainant that there is a very good LIC policy approved by the central Government solely meant for the benefit of the disabled person and they have also informed that if every year  Rs 13763/ is paid for a period of 10 years the party will get an amont of  Rs 126000/ in lump sum and also Rs 4000 per month for looking after the disabled person further they have informed that the said LIC Policy cannot be made in the name of the father of the complainant since his age was 62 years and also suggested to take the said policy in the name of the complainant”. The complainant and his father trusting the sweet words of the Opposite parties no 3 and no 4  and have agreed to take the said policy.

4.       Complainant continues in para 4 of the complainant that “his father  had an occasion to meet another LIC agent who is friend of his relative in December 2011 and at that juncture the policy referred above was shown to him. But to the utter surprise and shock of the father of the complainant it was made known to him that this policy was not as beneficial as it was impressed earlier by the Opposite parties no 3 and no 4”. Hence the  complainant  and his father came to know that the Opposite parties no 3 and no 4 have cheated them.

5.      In gist the complainant allegation is that the JEEVAN ADHAR POLICY floated by the opposite party no 1 & 2 is not beneficial to the handicapped as impressed by their agents, and the Opposite parties no 3 and no 4 have cheated by misrepresentation of facts about the policy which they ought to have explained in clear terms. In proving his case the complainant produced proposal premium paid receipt as EX C1, the copy of the insurance policy as EX C 2 and renewal premium receipt as EX C 3. In our opinion none is helpful in proving the complainant case but only supports the undisputed facts. However the allegation that the policy is not helpful for the handicapped is a matter of fact. In fact the policy whether helpful or not is to be decided by the insured before purchasing an insurance policy. Even if it is not beneficial it is to the insured  to refuse to buy. The complainant being the educated and literate in English language it is presumed that he read  the policy conditions and opted to go for it by signing the proposal form. Now after 4 years of the policy he shall not be allowed to take the contention that he or his father has been misrepresented or cheated.  

 6.     The allegation that there is misrepresentation and cheating by the Opposite parties no 3 and no 4 is concern there is no any piece of evidence to show. The complainant even though cross examined through interrogatories could not able to elicit anything to prove his case. Also it is specific case of the complainant that the Opposite parties no 3 and no 4 have misused the close ness with his father and his father is misrepresented. The complainant is not the right person to allege misrepresentation but it is his father to allege. The father who has been misrepresented is not a party and even he has not been examined to prove the misrepresentation. Hence the allegation of misrepresentation from the part of the Opposite parties no 3 and no 4 is not at all proved to any extent.  Hence in our opinion without any documents and without any witness of the misrepresented person the contention is without leg to stand. Also as we discussed in the previous Para the complainant being highly educated cannot take shelter under innocence of the policy condition not made to him after signing the proposal form.

 7.     We made an attempt to know the nature of the  JEVAN ADHAR policy also. It is written with clear terms under caption BENEFITS PAYABLE AND EVENTS ON THE HAPPENING OF WHICH THEY ARE PAYABLE AS  “in the event of the death of the life assured 20% of the amounts... national sum assured will be payable in lump sum and 80 % of the national sum assured will be utilized to provide annuity for 15 years certain and for life thereafter on the life of the handicapped dependent... 

8.      It is also mentioned in the same policy that the period is for 10 years and the amount of premium is  Rs 13763/ To whom benefit payable: The proposer’s nominee, being the handicapped dependent or any other person for the benefit of the handicapped dependent.      Hence JEEVAN ADHAR POLICY is for the benefit of the handicapped without any profit to the Opposite parties  and also we under stood from the record that the policy is sponsored by the central government income tax department and there is Tax exemption to the insured who opt for the policy for the benefit of the handicapped dependent.

9.     The Honorable Allahabad High court  had an occasion to discuss the constitutional validity of the policy in writ appeal no 46949/2010 and held “the insurer has designated the said policy in consultation with central Board of Direct taxes; it provides for assistance to the handicapped dependent after the death of the life assured and at the same time allows him the income tax benefits...  the policy conditions prohibiting surrender, assignment, and loan should be considered as essential and built in for the benefit of the handicapped children. They are not illegal arbitrary or unconscionable” with these discussions we are of the opinion that the complainant not proved the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties and not entitled for any relief prayed for. Hence point No. 2 & No.3 is in the negative.

POINT NO 4: in the result of above discussion and adjudication of the points above we deliver the following

ORDER

     The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.

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

     Page No.1 to 10 directly typed by member revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 24^th January 2017)

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Dr. P. Ganesh Prasad

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: 31.10.2008: The receipt issued by the opposite party No.2 for the payment of Rs.13,913/-

Ex.C2: 6.11.2008: LIC Bond issued by the opposite party  No.1 in favour of the complainant

Ex.C3: The receipt issued by the opposite party No.2 for the the payment of Rs.13,793/- for the 2009, 2010 and 2011 (3 numbers)

Ex.C4: 9.8.2012: Office copy of the Lawyer’s registered notice

Ex.C5: Acknowledgment (4 in numbers)

Ex.C6: 13.8.2012: Copy of the reply of the opposite party No.1

     Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1: Mrs. M. Jacintha Pais, Manager, L & HPF, LIC of  India, also filed affidavit evidence

RW2: Mr. Gokul Shet (RW2) Development Officer of LIC

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

Ex.R1: Original Pamphlet

Ex.R2: Original Proposal Form

Ex.R3: Medical Certificate obtained by complainant from Dr. M Mallikarjuna

Ex.R4: Copy of Income Tax rebate U/s 80 DD

Dated:  24.01.2017                                          MEMBER