STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 08.11.2017
Date of final hearing: 28.04.2023
Date of pronouncement: 18.05.2023
First Appeal No.1341 of 2017
In the matter of:-
V.K. Bhandari son of Shri M.L. Bhandari, aged 68 years, resident of H.No.113, Green Park, Hisar.
…..Complainant/Appellant
Versus
1. Branch Manager, LIC of India, U.E.-II, Hisar-2, Hisar.
2. Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Office, Karnal.
…..Respondents/Opposite parties
CORAM: Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member
Argued by:- Sh.Pankaj Mehta, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Piyush Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Vide order dated 22.09.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (In short “District Commission”) complainant-V.K. Bhandari has been non-suited as his complaint case No.400 of 2015 has been dismissed. Legality to this order (22.09.2017) has been questioned by him in present appeal.
2. Complainant purchased LIC Jiwan Anand Policy with profit + accident benefit for Rs.1,00,000/- under table 149-11 bearing No.174019214. Annual premium of Rs.13,396/- were paid regularly from 20.04.2004 to April, 2014 (total Rs.1,47,356/- in 11 installments). OPs charged extra amount of Rs.47,356/- against policy of Rs.1,00,000/-. On maturity, Rs.1,42,500/- was refunded by LIC against the amount of Rs.1,47,356/- (payment refunded was less by Rs.4,856/-). No status report was sent whereas it was mandatory for LIC to intimate the bifurcation of maturity amount and bonus etc. viz. insured amount, final additional bonus, interim bonus, loyalty addition etc. which is lapse on the part of LIC, in rendering services. Rs.47,356/- was charged by Ops, over and above the value of sum insured. As per policy’s terms, when it matures; final addition bonus were to be paid, which has not been paid. In RTI dated 24.06.2015; vague and irresponsible reply was given about amount of profits out of all premiums paid by insured so as to deprive the insured of actual profits, which instead were paid to its agents, agency holder and development officers who allured the insured with inflated profits where as the middlemen were paid hefty amount and insured suffered badly. It is pleaded that no facility has been availed during the currency of policy and on its successful completion; all such amount should be paid with interest. On these pleas, complainant filed complaint for a direction to pay compensation of Rs.1 lac with interest @18% from date of maturity of policy, till its realization; to pay Rs.80,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.20,000/- on account of harassment, mental torture/agony, deficiency in service etc.
3. Ops/respondents raised contest. In defence, it is asserted that complainant; complaint is false, not maintainable, misconceived, groundless and unsustainable. Complainant has no cause of action and locus standi. There is no deficiency in service of respondent. Complainant has not come with clean hands. He has suppressed true and material facts. OPs issued policy on the life of Vipin Kumar Bhandari commencing from 20.04.2014, maturity April, 2015, under plan and term: 149-45-11, premium Rs.13,396/- Mode yearly, sum assured was Rs.1.00 lac. OP has denied that an extra amount of Rs.47,356/- was charged by it. It is pleaded that Op’s have already made payment of maturity amount as per terms of policy. Rs.1,42,500/- was paid on 20.04.2015 through NEFT and besides this; surrender value of Rs.46,620/- was paid on 05.05.2015 through NEFT. Hence, total amount of Rs.1,89,120/- was paid to complainant. It is pleaded that premium is charged against all survival benefits i.e. maturity, sum assured and free death cover after maturity and accident benefit inbuilt also. Final Additional Bonus (FAB) is payable only for policies having paying term more than 15 years. As the premium paying term was only 11 years in the policy in question, therefore, Final Additional Bonus (FAB) is not payable. Complainant surrendered his policy on 05.05.2015 and received payment of surrender value of Rs.46,620/- which was part of benefit under policy.
4. Parties to this lis led their respective evidence, oral as well as documentary.
5. On subjectively analyzing the evidence; learned District Commission, Hisar vide order dated 22.09.2017 has dismissed the complaint with no order as to cost.
6. Feeling aggrieved, complainant has filed this appeal.
7. I have heard learned counsel for parties at length. Record too has been perused. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has urged that Final Addition Bonus (FAB) was required to be paid to policy holder which has not been paid and it constitute deficiency in the service of opposite party. Impugned order dated 22.09.2017 suffers from patent illegality. Per contra learned counsel for opposite party has supported the impugned order dated 22.09.2017.
8. On critically analyzing rival contentions; this Commission is of opinion that argument of learned counsel for appellant regarding payment of Final Additional Bonus (FAB), to policy holder, is bereft of credence. It is specific case of opposite party that Final Additional Bonus (FAB) is payable only on those policies which has premium paying term of more than 15 years, whereas in case in hand; premium paying term was only 11 years in the policy in question. Hence, there is absolutely error, while declining Final Additional Bonus (FAB) to complainant/policy holder/appellant. There is no denying fact that total amount of Rs. 1,89,120/- has been paid to complainant/appellant in relation to this LIC policy. Details with respect to Rs. 1,42,500/- has been mentioned in Para 5 of the impugned order dated 22.09.2017. In addition, Rs. 46,620/- has been paid on 05.05.2015 towards surrender value of the policy. Hence, total amount of Rs. 1,89,120/- has been to complainant/appellant in relation to his LIC Policy. Above being the facts; there is no deficiency in the service of opposite party, even remotely.
9. In opinion of this Commission; Learned District Commission has appreciated the entire case and constructively dealt with the controversy, on all relevant facets. Complainant/appellant has been rightly non-suited. Impugned order 22.09.2017 does not warrant any interfering in this appeal. It is maintained and affirmed. Present appeal being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
10. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
11. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
12. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 18th May, 2023
