JUDGEMENT

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that the agent of the op Sanjit Ram went to his house and assured that if one time LIC Policy of Rs. 50,000/- would be purchased by the complainant in that case after 8 years he shall get Rs. 2,00,000/-.  Relying upon his such assurance and considering the paper as produced by the agent i.e. leaflet initially complainant did not agree but when the agent of the op Sanjit Ram again and again requested the complainant to purchase the same, complainant refused and thereafter the said agent on several occasions appeared to the complainant along with handbill of LIC and after studying the advertisement, complainant was allured and at that time complainant reported to the agent Sanjit Ram that the amount is already fixed in the post office.  But the said agent convinced the complainant that if it is deposited in LIC, the amount would be higher than that of the benefit of the fixed deposit.  Thereafter being satisfied about the assurance of that agent, complainant withdrew the said amount and purchased two policies No. 3048052 and 3048051 having Sl. No. 68571 and 68570 dated 22.03.2010.

          Thereafter lapse of 3 years and 8 months, Sanjit Ram again came to his house and disclosed that he is sorry in view of the fact by purchasing of the said policies.  Practically complainant shall have to suffer loss and when the complainant asked that Sanjit Ram then for what purpose he assured the complainant that after lapse of 8years guaranteed amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be released in favour of the complainant?  At that time he submitted that now if it is sold or closed he shall have to get Rs. 92,000/- and at that time complainant realised that LIC and agent of LIC authorities are cheater.  When complainant reported the matter to LIC Branch Manager, S. Sarkar who at first asked the complainant what is the complainant’s range of educational qualification.  In reply complainant disclosed his poor education qualification and no knowledge about share market etc. when S. Sarkar reported that such type of policy is not for the middle class people.  At that time on query he came to learn that at the relevant time the value of Rs. 1,00,000/- became Rs. 92,000/-.  But if it would be in the fixed deposit, complainant ought to have got more than Rs. 40,000/- as interest.  Practically for the deceiving manner of practice and being allured by Sanjit Ram on behalf of LIC, complainant suffered much and LIC authority also expressed his sorrow for Sanjit Ram’s activities.  Thereafter complainant realised that he has already been cheated by the op and subsequently complainant submitted for withdrawal of the same and for cancelling the same and after that complainant got Rs. 45,268/- and Rs. 46,840/- and finding no other alternative, complainant received it and thereafter subsequently Sanjit Ram in presence of the LIC Manager paid Rs. 8,000/- and in the above circumstances, complainant prayed for relief for deficiency of service and for adopting unfair trade practice.

          On the other hand op Insurance Company by filing written version submitted that the policy was Wealth Plus policy which is admixture of Risk and Investment and in the advertisement guaranteed return was specifically mentioned and nature of policy is Wealth Plus which is a unit linked insurance plan.  But complainant did not continue the same for 8 years if he would continue in that case he shall have to get Rs. 2,00,000/-.  But in the meantime complainant prayed for withdrawal that is not permissible as per law for which as per net asset value (NAV) of the policy declared at the relevant time that complainant was given such amount.  So, there was no fault on the part of the op.  But fact remains complainant surrendered the said policy on 09.02.2013 and as per his prayer surrender was accepted and in this regard practically insurance company has nothing to do for which this complaint should be dismissed.

                                                        Decision with reasons

          After taking into consideration of the argument advanced by the complainant and also the Ld. Lawyer for the op and also considering the policy including the advertisement upon which complainant relied, it is clear that in the advertisement it is specifically mentioned that in case deposit of Rs. 50,000/- for one time deposit after 8 years complainant would get Rs. 2,00,000/- and it is a Wealth Plus policy and also a unit linked policy.

          Fact remains that insurance company did not anyway deceive him but probably being misguided by the agent Sanjit Ram complainant intended to surrender it.  No doubt complainant did not think for a moment that after deposit of the same he had no scope to withdraw it within 8 years that was in his knowledge.  But for some reasons he required money when he got total Rs. 92,000/-.  But anyhow remaining amount has been paid by the agent.  So apparently complainant got Rs. 1,00,000/-.

          Fact remains in the present case complainant is not entitled to any relief in view of the fact, complainant himself surrendered the same and LIC authority never stated that after lapse of 8 years he shall have to get any less amount because as per policy whatever the market price after lapse of 8 years, complainant will have to get Rs. 2,00,000/-.  For lack of determination or for want of fund or for any financial crisis of the complainant, complainant withdrew the same for which we find no justification to come to a conclusion that there was any fault or negligence or deficiency on the part of the op/Insurance Company.

          Truth is that complainant is literate person and another factor is that from the fixed deposit a person may get some interest but life risk is not covered.  But the present policy covers the risk of the life.  So, it was beneficial for the people.  But people at large are not in a mood to think for a moment, but they are thinking for benefit against any investment and this no doubt a misconception of the people at large.  Truth is that insurance company never asked him to withdraw the same.  But it is complainant’s own intention.  So, he withdrew it.  But after 8 years complainant if would withdraw invariably in that case guaranteed of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall have to get and probably being misguided by the outsider of the ops, complainant surrendered it and anyhow he got the entire Rs. 1,00,000/- and in respect of insurance policy, insurance company has no locus standi to give any interest against any surrendered amount as per norms when policy was not continued for 8 years.

          In view of the above circumstances and considering the entire materials we are convinced to hold that there is no merit in this case for which this complaint fails.

          Hence, it is

                                                          ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest against ops but without any cost.