Delhi

West Delhi

CC/05/698

Ashok Kumar Jha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager LIC of India - Opp.Party(s)

29 Jul 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                            GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151 Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                     Date of institution:18.11.2005

Complaint Case. No.698/05                                           Date of order:   29.07.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Ashok Kumar Jha S/o Sh. ChiranjivaJha R/o WZ-794 Palam Village Near BadiyalChowk, New Delhi -45.

Complainant

VERSUS

1.        Branch Manager LIC of India Branch No. 31B, 1^st Floor, JeevanPravahBuilding  District Centre, JanakPuri, New Delhi-110058.

                                                                                                Opposite party no.1

2.        Mrs. MeeraJha( Agent) W/o Sh. Navin Chandra Jha R/o RZ-C 2/147, Vijay Enclave,Palam Road, New Delhi-110045.

                                                                                                            Opposite party no.2

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

            ShriAshok Kumar Jha named above herein the complainant has filed the present consumer complaint under sections 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act against Branch Manager LIC  of India and another herein after in short referred as the opposite parties for directions to the opposite parties  to revive his life insurance policies  no. 330263175 and 330542639 without penalty, interest and any other charges for delay  in payment  of premiums  and pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on  account of harassment  and mental  agony , Rs. 40,000/-   for professional loss and Rs. 5,000/-  cost of complaint.

            The brief  relevant facts necessary for disposal of the complaint as stated are that the complainant  is having insurance policy no. 330263175 in his name and  policy no. 330542639 inhis name and in name of his wife Smt. Ranjana issued by the opposite party no. 1.  The complainant   used to pay premiums regularly and also paid premiumsfor September 2003 vide cheque no. 405059 dated 04.10.2003  of the policies.But  when the complainant  visited  the opposite party no. 1 to pay premiums for the  December  2003 the  opposite party no.1 refused to accept his cheque on the ground  that last premiums for September 2003 were still due  and the current premiums  could not be accepted without  clearance of previous dues.   Therefore, the complainant was compelled to file complaint no.180/04 before the Consumer Forum.  The opposite party no.1 in their reply filed in complaint no. 180/04 admitted that the complainant had paid the premiums.  The complainant with copy of the reply on 20.07.2004 visited the opposite party no.1 to pay the dues.  But the opposite part no.1 denied and asked thecomplainant to wait for out come of the complainant.  The Consumer Forum vide order dated 04.02.2005 passed in complaint no. 180/04 directed the opposite party no. 1 to pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/-  as cost of complaint on account  of deficiency in service.

           

 

That on receipt of the order dated 04.02.005 the complainant several times

visited the opposite party no. 1  and tried to make payments  of the due against the policies.  But the opposite party no. 1  refused to accept  the dues on one pretext  or  the other.  Therefore, the complainant wrote several letters to the opposite party no. 1.  The opposite party no.1 vide letter dated 21.04.2005 informed the complainant that the policies were lying in lapsed mode since  December2003 and instructed the complainant to submit prescribed form for revival of the  policies.   The complainant visited the opposite party no.1 to submit the revival form. They asked for signature of the opposite party no. 2agent of opposite party no. 1 on the revival form.She refused to sign the revival form.  Therefore,  the complainant get signed the revival form  from Sh. Sanjay Kumar another  agent of the opposite party no. 1 and submitted in office of  opposite party no. 1 on 27.06.2005.  But  the opposite party no.1  refused to accept the dues  on the ground that complainant  will have to pay Rs. 1,000/- as penalty  for late payment   and thereafter the opposite party no. 1 would get complainant and his wife medically  examined and if they found  them medically fit, only then policies could be revived . 

            That  the complainant  has been waiting for further steps of the opposite party no.1.  He also made several visits to the office of the opposite party no. 1.But in vain.Hence the present complaint with prayer for directions to the opposite party no. 1to revivehislife insurance policies no. 330263175  and 330542639

without penalty, interest and any other charges for delay  in payment  of premiums

and pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on  account of harassment  and mental  agony,  Rs. 40,000/-   for professional loss and Rs. 5,000/-  cost of the complaint.

             After notice  the opposite party no. 1 appeared  and filed reply  raising preliminary objections of cause of action, maintainability, mis-use of law, concealment of true and material facts and the complainthas misused  process of law.  On merits  the opposite party no. 1 admitted outcome  of  the Consumer complaint  no. 180/04. But asserted  that the complainant  did not  pay  premiums due in December 2003 , therefore, the policies are lying  in lapse mode and as per the  terms and conditions of the policy the lapsed policy  can be revived within a period of five years from the date of  unpaid premiums and on payment of the premiumsalongwith  late fee, other charges and submission of  proof of  continued insurability to the satisfaction of opposite party no.1  subject to medical  examination.    But the complainant and his wife neither got themselves medically examined nor paid the due premiums with interest  and charges , therefore, without medical examination and  payment of premiums  with late fee and charges etc.  the policies can not be revived and prayed  for dismissal of the complaint .

            The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of the opposite party no.1while controverting stand  of the opposite party no.1 and reiteratedhis stand  taken in

the complaint.  He  once again  prayed for directions to the opposite party no. 1.

            When Sh. Ashok Kumar Jha complainant was asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit   he filed  his affidavit  narrating  facts of the complaint .  He also relied  upon copy of order dated 04.02.2005  passed  by  the District  Consumer  Forum –III in complaint  case no. 180/04, letter dated 19.04.2005 request for acceptance of  dues  made by the complainant to the opposite party no. 1, letter date 28.03.2005 for intimation of change of address of the  complainant ,  letter dated 19.03.2005 written by the complainant  to the opposite party no. 1 for implementation of order dated 04.02.2005, letter dated 21.04.2005 of opposite party no. 1 informing  the complainant of lapse mode of policies since 02.12.2003.

             When the opposite parties  were asked to lead evidence by way of  affidavit, the opposite party no.1 submitted affidavit of  Sh. Surya Kumar  Choubey Sr. Branch Managerauthorisedattorney   narrating facts of the reply.

            We have heardthe  complainant in person  and learned counsel for opposite party no. 1  and have gone through  the material available on record carefully and thoroughly .

            Admittedly the complainant is holder of policy no. 330263175. The complainant with his wife is also holder of  policy no.  330542639.  The complainant paid the premiums of policies due in September 2003.   But the opposite party no.1 did not enter the premiums in the relevant record.They  also deniedpayment of the premiums. Therefore, the complainant had to file consumer complaint no. 180/04.  Wherein the opposite party No. 1 admitted   payment of the premiums in time.  The District Forumdirected the opposite party no. 1 to pay  sum of Rs. 2,000/-  for compensation on account of mental and physical agony and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of complaint to the complainant vide order dated 04.02.2005 passed in complaint no. 180/04.

The case of the complainant is that on receipt of copy of the reply of theopposite party  filed in complaint no. 180/04  on 20.07.2014 he visited the office of the opposite party no.1 to pay  the amount due.  But the opposite party no.1 denied and asked thecomplainant  to wait for outcome of the  complaint no. 180/04.  The complaint no. 180/04was decided vide order dated 04.02.2005.  Therefore, immediately he again visited the office of the opposite party no. 1.But they refused to accept the due amounton the ground that the policies are lying in lapse mode since December 2003.  He also wrote letter dated 19.04.2005to the opposite party no. 1.  Who vide reply 21.04.2005 again asserted that the policies are lying in lapse mode on account of nonpayment of premiums due in December 2003 and cannot be revived without  payment of interest and medical of the policy holders.

Admittedly the complainant filed the complaint no. 180/04 in the year 2004 after December 2003.  Thereafter the opposite parties filed reply in the complaint

no.180/04 admitting payment of the premiums of September 2003. 

            The case of the opposite party no.1 is that both the policies of the complainant are lying inlapsed mode since December 2003 onaccount of non

payment of premiums of policies due in December 2003 and payable within extended period of 30 days.  The complainant and his wife also did not get themselves medically examined to show proof of continued insurability to the satisfaction of the opposite party no.1. The opposite party no. 1 admitted  payment of premiums due in September 2003 only in July 2004  in the reply filed in complaint no. 180/04.   Therefore, when the premiums for   September 2003 were not paid according to the opposite party no. 1 , admitted paid in July 2004 only the policies  could not be kept lapsed on  account of non payment of premiums due in December 2003.  The complainant from letters and affidavits  has been able to prove that after filing reply in July 2004 in complaint  no. 180/04   he tried to pay the premiums  due in December 2003  and all other  dues pending but the opposite party  no. 1  refused to accept the premiums and dues on the ground  that the policies  have been kept in lapsed mode since December 2003  and complainant and his wife have failed to medically examined  to show  continued  insurability .

 

They asked the complainant to wait tillout come of the complaint no. 180/04.  The complaint no. 180/04 was decided vide order dated 04.02.2005. The complainant

immediately asked the opposite party  no. 1 to accept the premiums of December

2003  and all remaining dues.  They refused to accept the premiums and remaining dues.  Therefore, he wrote letter date 19.04.2005 requesting the opposite party no. 1 to accept the premium of December 2003 and all other dues.  Butthe opposite party no. 1 vide letter dated 21.04.2005 again refused to accept the premiumsand dueswithout interest and medical examination.  Therefore, complainant had to send  legal notice  to the opposite party no. 1.  The opposite party no. 1 did not respond the letter and the complainant filed a complaint.

  In the light of above facts and circumstances it is evident that there is no delay on the part of the complainant in payment of the premiumsdue  in December  2003 and other dues .  Whereas there is unfair trade practice , negligence and deficiency in  service on the part of the opposite party no. 1 on account of keeping the policies in lapsed mode since December 2003 despite the fact that the matter wassubjudice and the opposite party no. 1  admitted payment of premiums of September 2003 only in July 2004 and thereafter also did not accept the premiums and dues on flimsy grounds.  Therefore,  we direct the opposite party no. 1 to accept all the premiums  due since December  2003 without

any interest or expenses and surcharge. And revive the  policy no. 330263175  and 330542639 immediately and also  pay a sum  of Rs.  11,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental, physical and financial harassment and cost of litigation .     

Order pronounced on : 29.07.2017

• Compliance of the order be made within 30 days after receipt of the order.
• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

                  

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                              ( R.S.  BAGRI )

                         MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT