Orissa

Kendujhar

CC/60/2015

Sri Jagabandhu Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.The Sr.Divisional Manager,LIC of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Balabhadra Nanda

22 Feb 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KENDUJHAR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 60 OF 2015

    Sri Jagabandhu Das,

    S/o- Kanhei Charan Das,

    At- Mochinda, P.O- Salabani,

    P.S- Anandapur, Dist- Keonjhar, Odisha

    At present- working as Branch Manager,

    State Bank of India, At/P.O- Jagamohanpur,

    P.S- Telkoi, Dist- Keonjhar…………………………………………………………Complainant

                           Vrs.

1. The Sr. Divisional Manager,

    Life Insurance Corporation of India,

    Jeevan Prakash, Nuapatna, Cuttack- 753001

2. Branch Manager,

    Life Insurance Corporation of India,

    Keonjhar Branch……………………………………………………...................Op. Parties

 

PRESENT:

Shri Purushottam Samantara, President

Smt. B. Giri, Member (W)

Advocate for Complainant- Sri Balabhadra Nanda

Advocate for OPs- Sri Tapas Kumar Mohapatra & P.K. Jena

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

Date of Filing - 30.12.2015                                                                                       Date of Order-22.02.2017

 

1. In adumbrate, the complainant is a servicing officer in SBI Keonjhar and while serving in SBI, Hatibari taken Life Insurance, the Policy No. is 590090867 as obtained with.

2. It is said the premium was Rs.274/- and the maturity value amounts to Rs.71,500/- also added the complainant transferred from Nabarangpur to Joda on dt.20.06.2011 accordingly the transfer intimated to the Insurer at Nabarangpur on dt.07.06.14.

3. Further submitted, the Branch Manager, Nabarangpur issued a discharge form along with a request letter, where the final matured amount mentioned as Rs.71,130/- instead of Rs.71,500/- and the calculation entails the short fall tends to non-payment of five premiums at his end. 

4. But it is stated, the LIC Keonjhar Branch credited Rs.61,267/- to complainant’s SBI Account No-11378043862 as maturity value.

5. The petitioner later in enquiry tend to revealed, the loss payment is due to 18 nos. of premium as not received by the Insurer where as all and entire 240 nos. premium has rightly deducted from the monthly salary consecutively.

6. Such discrepancy and irregularity compelled him institute the case and prayed reliefs under Consumer Protection Act that deemed just & proper and that necessities cost. Relied on policy copy, discharge voucher, salary certificate, Final settlement certificates and advocate notice in photo copies and affidavit.

7. On getting notice, the OP appeared, not filed version and did not take part in the proceeding having considerably allowing sufficient opportunity to advance.

8. Heard the learned counsel of complainant and perused the materials on record.

9. The thorough perusal of record reveals, the petitioner paid all the 240 nos. premium at regular intervals and each deduction costs Rs.274 only and a consolidated cheque has been disbursed to the LIC, but astonishingly the non-reaching of premium has been not entirely noticed or intimation made under the statutory obligation of section 50 of the Insurance Act-1938.

10. Further it is observed, the policy neither has been lapsed even after not getting 18 nos. of premium explicitly mentioned on the status report issued by Cuttack division office as we go into the same.

11. Being non-controvert by the LIC on the issue, even not ensuring the statutory obligation amply proves the action of the OP is hap-hazard and gross negligence, the negligence relating to non-deduction of premium is entirely not rebutted with any documentary evidence or substantative submissions. Eventually elapsed from the proceeding casts doubt about the mis-calculation at OPs end for which the complainant can’t be fastened at any length or charged of any negligence.

12. We find the entire premium has been disbursed and deduction made from salary but the contention raised that 18 nos. of premium not remitted is out right non-substantative & unreasoned one.   

13. Further non-remittance of 18 nos. premium did not cast serious implication on the status of the policy being not rated as lapsed. In the above noted circumstance we prefer to discuss to references that in terms of section 50 that reads:-

“Insurance Act Section 50 - Notice of options available to the assured on the lapsing of a policy. An Insurer shall, before the expiring of three months from the date on which the premiums in respect of a policy life Insurance were payable but not paid, give notice to the policy holder informing him of the options available to him unless these are set forth in the policy.”   

14.  It is settled principle that in non-receipt of the premium, the Insurance company was duty bound to give a notice to the employer as well as to the employee regarding default of payment of premium and its failure to do so could not deprive the Insured of the benefits under the Policy.

15.Further the provisions of their own Manual for policy Servicing Department No.14 Salary Saving Scheme, LIC of India invigorates:- “As per the Manual, before lapse, notices were required to be issued to the employer and the employee on prescribed forms number 5227 and 5228 respectively, which not abided with.

16. Again, the Policy servicing Manual paragraph 13.4 and 16 for administering Salary Saving Scheme that reads:-

13.4 - LOSS OF PAY: Default in payment of premia should be intimated to the party and arrears of premia should be called for. If the number of premium unpaid are 6 (six) lapse action should be taken.

14 -       x           x          x          x         x

15 -       x           x          x          x         x

16 - DEFAULT AND FINAL LAPSE NOTICE     

17. While posting the Group ledger any default in payment of premia should be communicated to the employer on a special form No.5227.If the premiums, remain unpaid for 6 months a lapse intimation on the prescribed form No.5228 should be sent to the employee. And lapse register is also to be mentioned for preparing statics in respect of lapses.

18. In the present, the policy is not declared lapsed nor notice is made to employer or employee. Again the Insurer has not produce, the lapse register before the forum so no answer has been made out as to the policy was not declared lapsed. The actions are arbitrary nature, for which the complainant should not be deprived of an amount of 18 nos. premium: -

                       One premium costs - Rs.274/-

                      18 nos. of premium - Rs.274 x 18 = Rs.4,932/-

19. When all the premia has been paid, the complainant cannot deemed as defaulter, so we consider the petitioner is entitled to receive the rest amount i.e. Rs.71,500 - Rs.61,267 = Rs.10,233. Thereon the necessary accrual used to get till date of maturity.

     The above noted discussed abstract has been made out in the decision - LIC of India Vs Smt. Ram Sakhi Revision Petition No.4150/(NC) 2007, decided on 17.01.2015 and we subscribe the same in reference to the present case and accordingly the case is allowed.

O R D E R

 The OPs are hereby directed to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.10,233/- (Ten thousand two hundred and thirty three) only along with necessary other accrual benefits that attracts therein and also liable to pay a sum of Rs.1000/-(One thousand) towards harassment and mental agony inclusive of cost within four weeks of this Order, failing which @ interest 6% per annum will be charged on the entire amount till realization.

         Further we direct the OPs 1&2 will pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (One thousand) jointly to the petitioner for non adhering to the call of the forum, even giving with sufficient opportunity, within above noted time frame, failing which  Rs.10/- per day will accrued till realization.

 

       Copy of the Order be made available to the parties as per rule.

File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced, 22^nd February 2017.          

                                                                                                                                                             

                  I agree                                                                                     

             (Smt. B. Giri)                                                                                       (Shri Purushottam Samantara)

            Member (W)                                                                                                         President                    

         DCDRF, Keonjhar                                                                                             DCDRF, Keonjhar                                                   

          

                                                                                Dictated & Corrected by me

                                                                              (Shri Purushottam Samantara)

                                                                                          (President)

                                                                                     DCDRF, Keonjhar