BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 315 of 2017                                                     

                                                           Date of Institution:        30.11.2017                                                                  

                                                          Date of Decision :         13.03.2019.

Om Parkash son of Shri Ram Kishan, resident of House No.230, Near Durga Mandir, Khairpur, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

            ……Complainant.

                                                Versus.

1. Anil Miglani, Advisor of Reliance Nipon Life Insurance Company Ltd., H-Block, Ist Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400710, India.

2. Reliance Nipon Life Insurance Company Ltd. through its Authorized person/ Manager, H-Block, Ist Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400710, India.

3. Branch Manager, Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Office at FF-Verma Building Opp. RSD High School, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa.                                                    ...…Opposite parties.   

       Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986

Before:       SHRI R.L. AHUJA……………….. PRESIDENT                                   

                  SHRI ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ……MEMBER.                                   

                  MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR……….MEMBER.     

Present:      Sh. Lucky Duggal, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. S.S. Mandia, Advocate for opposite parties no.2 and 3.

Opposite party no.1 exparte.

ORDER

                   In brief, the case of complainant is that agent of op’s company i.e. op no.1 on behalf of company approached to the complainant and convinced him to get a policy of his company in the presence of respectable persons and op no.1 allured the complainant for the purchase of policy scheme/ investment plan. It is further averred that complainant being allured by op no.1 about the best facilities of policy scheme/ investment plan provided by the company, purchased a policy/ investment plan against the sum assured of Rs.3,00,000/- on payment of monthly premium amount of Rs.6875/- for a term of 10 years. In this regard the op no.1 on behalf of ops no.2 and 3 issued a policy/ application Regn. No.10438848 to the complainant and further assured the complainant that after completion of period prescribed, the complainant will get double of the deposited amount.

                             It is further averred that complainant was paying the installments of the policy regularly for a period of 10 years. At the time of issuing the said policy, the ops assured the complainant that when the complainant will withdraw the said policy, he can get the double of deposited amount. That complainant had approached the ops several times and requested the ops to make the payment of the said policy amount alongwith interest accrued thereon but the ops are putting off the complainant on one pretext or the other. It is further averred that complainant had already handed over all requisite papers/ documents alongwith the policy/ investment plan to the OPs, but till date the ops have not settled/ paid the maturity amount of plan to the complainant. In this way the ops have flouted the terms and conditions of the policy/ investment plan. That the ops have acted in most deficient manner and have acted against the above said policy/ investment plan norms and have wrongly withheld the amount inspite of the fact that policy/ investment plan of complainant has already been matured. The ops have caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. That complainant also sent a legal notice on 7.11.2017 but to no effect. That thereafter on again approaching of the complainant, the insurance company flatly declined for the indemnify of claim. Hence, this complaint for a direction to the ops to make payment of maturity amount alongwith upto date interest and to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages on account of unnecessary harassment and also to pay a sum of Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                On notice, opposite party no.1 failed to appear before the Forum and was proceeded against exparte.

3.                Opposite parties no.2 and 3 appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. The policy in question was purchased by complainant from the office of answering ops at Karnal and the policy in question was issued from the office of answering op from Head office at Mumbai. Mere office of answering ops at Sirsa does not entitle the complainant for territorial jurisdiction. That the complainant has invested his money for earning profit and same has been admitted in Para no.2 of the complaint, hence the complainant is not consumer. On merits, it is submitted that company received duly filled proposal form. Based on the information provided in the proposal form considering it to be true and correct, the company issued policy bearing no.10438848. It is further submitted that the proposal was received in the office of answering ops at Karnal, wherein proposer proposed for Endowment Plan (Regular). That believing the information as regard profession / business, income, state of health and other information given in the proposal form to be correct, answering ops issued the policy no.10438848 on 11.01.2007 for the policy term 10 years and policy premium term of 10 years, for the basic sum assured of Rs.3,00,000/- under various heads and the life assured was to make the yearly installment of Rs.6700/-. The complainant has paid 20 half yearly installment/premium totaling Rs.1,35,449/-. A cheque bearing No.166657 amounting to Rs.1,22,194.15 dated 02.02.2017 was dispatched  but the complainant opted not to encash the same and the replying Ops are ready to make the payment of Rs.1,22,194.15/- and on survival of life assured to 10.01.2017 Rs.1,00,000/- plus vested bonuses would be payable.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops No.2 & 3, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any amount, interest, costs, compensation or any other amount whatsoever, and any order towards refund of premium. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A. He also tendered copies of documents Ex.CW1/B to Ex.CW1/Z & Ex.CW1/Aa. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appearing Ops produced affidavit of Sh.Pankaj Chawla Ex.RW1/A and also produced documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2.

5.                          We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for opposite parties no.2 & 3 and have perused the case file carefully.

6.                          In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He also tendered copies of documents Ex.CW1/B to Ex.CW1/Z & Ex.CW1/Aa. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appearing Ops produced affidavit of Sh.Pankaj Chawla Ex.RW1/A wherein he has reiterated all the averments made in the written statement and also produced documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2.

7.                          It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant has purchased a policy/investment plan from Op Nos. 2 & 3 through Op No.1 on payment of monthly premium amount of Rs.6875/- for a term of 10 years. It is also an admitted fact on record that the complainant has been paying installment of the policy regularly from 2007 to 2017. It is also an admitted fact on record that after maturity the complainant has lodged the claim with the OPs to pay the maturity amount of the policy in question and the Ops had issued a cheque No.166657 amounting to Rs.122194.15 paisa dated 02.02.2017, but however, the same was not encashed by the complainant due to the reasons best known to the complainant.

8.                          During the course of arguments learned counsel for the complainant has strongly contended that the complainant has purchased this policy, under this impression as assured by the Op No.1, for a sum assured of Rs.3 lacs and at the time of maturity the complainant will be paid Rs.3 lacs + bonus, if any.

9.                          On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops have strongly contended that the complainant has purchased the policy with a basic plan of Rs.1 lac with Accidental Rider Benefit of Rs. 1 lac and Critical Illness Benefit of Rs. 1 lac, but however, the complainant is entitled only to the basic plan of Rs.1 lac + bonus and in this way a cheque of Rs.1,22,194.15 paisa dated 02.02.2017 was dispatched to the complainant by post vide POD No.RM687287694IN on 06.02.2017 but the complainant did not get the same encashed. The Ops are still ready to make the payment of Rs.1,22,194.15 paisa.

10.                        The policy form Ex.CW1/Y which was submitted by the complainant reveals that the complainant had applied for Endowment Plan for a term plan of 10 years with the basic plan of Rs.1 lac with a single premium of Rs.6698/- alongwith accidental rider benefit of Rs. 1 lac and critical illness benefit of Rs.1 lac for 10 years and in total it was for Rs.3 lacs. But, however, on the basis of this proposal form policy, Endowment Plan (Regular) Ex.CW1/T was issued with the same terms and conditions, so, it appears from the evidence of the complainant as well as evidence of the Ops that the complainant has purchased this policy with a basic benefit of Rs. 1 lac alongwith accidental benefit rider of Rs. 1 lac and critical illness rider of Rs.1 lac. Though the said policy has been matured in the year 2017 but till today the complainant has not been paid the maturity amount due to one or other reasons, which clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

11.              In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the Ops to pay the maturity value of the policy as per terms and conditions of policy to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Ops are further directed to pay interest @ 9 % per annum over the amount, to which, the complainant is found entitled from the date of maturity of the policy till its realization. We also direct the OPs to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The OPs are liable to comply with this order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.  

Announced in open Forum.                                       President,

Dated:13.03.2019.                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                   Member                         Member                                                             

                DCDRF, Sirsa           DCDRF, Sirsa