SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Deficiency in service in respect of non-release of maturity amount on Insurance Policy of the Complainant are the allegations arrayed against Ops.
2. Complaint, in brief reveals that complainant availed a Life Insurance Policy (L.I.C.) bearing No.-5013584205838 before Branch Manager, L.I.C. of India, Pattamundai(Op No.1) for a period of 15 years. The date of commencement of Policy was dt. 28/08/2001 with maturity date as on dt. 28/08/2016 and the maturity amount as per the Policy was for Rs. 40,375/-. It is revealed from the Complaint petition that to avail a loan, Complainant approached Op No.3-Bank by proposing to take the Policy bond as security in the year Nov-2006, accordingly Complainant deposited the Policy bond before Op-Bank. After few days when the Op-Bank busy in shifting their Branch refused to sanction the loan and deferred the matter of return of document on the same ground. When Complainant approached Op-L.I.Corp. to release the maturity amount of the policy takenon date of its completion, Op-Insurance Corp. denied to release the maturity amount as the said Policy bond of the Complainant ‘assigned’ to Op-Bank for sanction of the loan. It is also stated that none of the Ops took any fruitful steps to release the maturity amount of Complainant. Complainant being a poor person was in urgent need of money for treatment of his daughter and the non-release of maturity amount caused mental agony and constrained the Complainant to file the present dispute. The cause of action of the instant case arose within the local jurisdiction of this Forum and lastly on dt. 9/12/2016. When the Ops refused to pay the maturity amount. The complaint is filed with prayer that a direction may be issued to Ops for realization of maturity amount of Rs. 40,375/- along with up to-date interest from dt. 1/11/2016 against Policy No.- 5013584205838 and to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony and financial loss.
3. On receipt of the Notice Op-Insurance Corp. appeared into the dispute through their Ld. Counsel Mr. P.K.Samal and filed joint written statement on behalf of Op No.1&2. Op-Corp. in their written statement denying the allegations of the Complainant averred that the Policy of the Complainant was assigned to Kalinga Gramya Bank(Op No.3) and the assignment of Insurance Policy is governed U/S 38 of the Insurance Act. 1938. As per the provision all the right, title and interest over the Policy is transferred from the assignor (Policy holder) to the assignee Bank, accordingly all the Policy moneys due under the Policy shall be paid to the assignee(Op-Bank). Hence, the Complainant is not a consumer as per the ‘assignment’ is concerned. The factual aspect of dispute according to the Op-Corporation’s written statement are that Complainant had taken one L.I.C. Policy bearingNo. -584205838 the commencement of the date of policy is dt. 28/8/01 and its maturity date is dt. 28/8/2016. It is also averred that as the policy holder assigned the aforesaid policy in favour of Op No.3-Bank on dt. 22/11/2016, which is registered on the books of accounts of LIC of India and as per provisions U/S 38 of the Insurance Act 1938 all the benefits under the policy are payable to the Bank only. On completion of date of maturity as the assignee Bank has not yet submit the relevant documents before the Op-Corp., including the policy bond in original, executed discharge vouchers etc., payment of maturity claim under the policy is not done and the assignment of policy is valid till-date. In the circumstances, Op-Corp. submits that as the complainant is not a consumer under Op-corp. and no fault lies with the Op-Corp. same is liable to be dismissed with cost.
4. Upon Notice Op- Bank appeared through their Ld. Counsel Mr. R.P. Lenka and filed written version. Op-Bank in their written statement challenge the maintainability of the complaint on grounds of limitation, on the question of facts, absence of relationship of ‘consumer’ and ‘service provider’, no deficiency in service of Op-Bank as alleged by the complainant and cited decisions of Honbl’e National Commission and our own State Commission. The reply version of the Op-bank in short reveals that as the Complainant entered into an agreement with Op-Insurance Company in the year 2001 and the Complaint is being filed in the year 2016, accordingly as per the decision of Honbl’e National Commission the complaint is hopelessly barred in point of limitation as provided in the C.P.Act. 1986, and it is also averred that no assignment letter or policy was received by the Op-Bank, and the burden of proof U/S-100-106 of Indian Evidence Act, lies with the complainant, rather the Op-Bank dtd. 30/12/2016 intimated the Op-Insurance Corp. to release the matured amount in favour of the Complainant as no loan has been sanctioned. It is further averred that as the alleged loan has not been sanctioned, the Complainant can’t be treated as a ‘consumer’ as per the definition of C.P.Act, in addition to that there is no cause of action in the instant case against Op-Bank and Complainant sought relief against the Op-Insurance company to get his matured amount of policy, which are solely related to a dispute between Op-Insurance Company and Complainant. On deficiency in service the Op-bank averred that no deficiency in service has been committed by the Op-Bank, as no assignment and policy is received and the policy is not pledged to the Op-Bank, as no loan has been sanctioned in the favour of the Complainant. Accordingly, the Complainant is not maintainable against Op-Bank and same is liable to be dismissed against Op-Bank.
5. Heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels for the parties gone through the complainant, written statement filed by the parties. It is an admitted fact that Complainant obtained a life Insurance Policy under Op-Insurance Corporation bearing policy No.- 501358405838, the date of commencement of policy was dt. 28/8/2001 with maturity date of policy was dt. 28/8/2016 and the sum assured on maturity amount is for Rs. 40,375/-. It is also admitted from the complainant and written statement of Op-Corp. that to avail a loan from the Op-Bank against the Policy which was assigned to Op-Bank by the Op-Insurance Company. It is further admitted that on maturity or during the validity of the Policy the Complainant neither availed the loan amount nor the maturity amount till filing of the present dispute.
The crux of dispute revolves around the issue, relates to status of policy, which was assigned to avail the loan, and no loan was sanctioned against the policy, and when no policy was submitted before Op-Corp., the maturity amount is not released as revealed from the Complaint petition and written statement filed by the parties. The case of the complainant are that in order to avail a loan against the said Insurance Policy approached Op-Bank and deposited the Policy for sanction of loan, but the Op-Bank neither sanctioned the loan, nor returned the policy. Op-Bank in his counter reply states that complainant has never deposited the policy assigned to him for sanction of loan, as no loan has been sanctioned keeping and pledging of the policy of the Complainant does not arise at all, rather on dt. 30/11/2016 vide Op-Bank’s letter bearing No.- 00A/LIC/574(Annexure-B) addressed to the Op-Insurance Company requesting him to release the maturity amount to the complainant as no loan has been sanctioned against the policy of the Complainant. On the other hand Op-Corporation’s pleas are that as the policy holder assigned the aforesaid policy in favour of Op-Bank as dt. 22/11/2016 and U/S 38 of Insurance Act, 1938 all the benefits under the policy are payable to the Bank only and after maturity of the policy Op-Insurance Company intimated the Op-bank to submit the documents i.e, original Policy bond, executed discharge voucher etc, but the Op-Bank does not comply the same for which maturity amount was not disbursed. Op-Corp. relied on certain documents as per the written statement, but not a single document is filed into the dispute.
It is clear before us that though the policy of the complainant was assigned to OP-Bank for sanction of a loan, but complainant does not avail the loan till date as revealed from the written statement of the OP-Bank. Hence, when no loan has been sanctioned the issue and non-submission of assignment of policy if any is not a legal bar to release the maturity amounts of the policy of complainant. Now the question arises regarding possession of policy bond, which is required for release of the maturity amount. Complainant and OP-Bank deny the possession of original policy, on the other side OP-Insurance Corpn. in their written statement averred that the Bank has been intimated to submit the policy bond in original for payment of the maturity proceeds. Equally it is clear from written statement of OP-Insurance company that they have relied on the documents which includes the policy bond( 4 pages). Accordingly, when the policy bond of the complainant is very much available with the office of the Op-Corporation, asking the complainant-policy holder or the assignee Bank to submit the same for release of maturity amount is not any relevant or obstruction for releasing maturity amount of the Complainant.
The next point of determination is maintainability of the complainant as same is categorically raised by OP-Bank in their written statement.
6. ON GROUND OF LIMITATION
OP-Bank in their written statement states that as per ‘insurance agreement’ the parties entered into the same in the year 2001 and the complaint is filed in the year 2016. Hence, it is a time barred complaint which cannot be entertained by the Forum. OP-Bank to support their plea cited a number of decisions of Hon’ble National Commission. Considering the pleas, we are of unanimous view that complainant takes the policy in the year 2001 and the maturity year is 2016 and complainant receives the information of non-release of maturity amount from the OP-Insurance Corp. in the year-2016,for aforesaid reasons, prior to the year-2016 that there is no scope left before the complainant to know the fate of policy, as Complainant was not aware of the fact of submission of assignment of Policy, required for availing the maturity amount. On the date of maturity i.e, dt. 28/8/2016 Complainant came to know the requirements of documents necessary of release of maturity amount and complaint is filed within 4 to 5 months of date of maturity of the policy. Hence, the complaint is well within the time limit required to file a complaint under C.P.Act,1986.
ON THE QUESTION OF FACTS
The points raised in this regard have already discussed and observed in the previous paragraphs.
NOT A CONSUMER
Op-Bank taken the plea that as no loan has been sanctioned to the complainant-policy holder the definition of ‘consumer’ is not applicable to the complainant as the relationship between complainant and OP-Bank is not a consumer and ‘service provider’ as per the C.P.Act. The version of the OP-Bank is strengthened by the complainant himself, in the complaint it is stated that complainant has not availed any loan from the OP-Bank. In our opinion, when no loan is sanctioned/availed to/by the complainant, the complainant cannot be treated as a consumer as no ‘consideration’ is paid or promised to pay to the Op-Bank by the complainant and no service is rendered by the OP-Bank. Hence, in this point, we, agree with the submissions of OP-Bank and the present complaint is filed against the OP-Bank seeking without any relief, and Op-Bank is a part of the total process and for appreciation of the fact and for the ends of justice, OP-Bank is imp leaded as a party.
ABSENECNE OF CAUSE OF ACTION
In this point OP-Bank submits that as per the complaint there is no cause of action against the OP-Bank rather the complainant has agitated the issue of non-payment of matured amount of impugned policy which obviously falls, within the domain of the LIC authorities and by citing a decision of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2016(4) CPR 77(NC) in case of Sawarn Singh-Vrs-Hanuman Automobiles International Ltd.. Hon’ble National Commission held that the ‘cause of action is a mixed question of fact and law’. In view of the said judgment no question of law is involved in the dispute, so the complainant does not enjoy the ‘cause of action’ against OP-Bank. OP-Bank by raising this point try to misread the interpretation of law. To our opinion cause of action is a ‘bundle of facts’ and ‘continuing process’. OP-Bank in this point admits that in the present dispute against the OP-Bank only ‘facts’ are related without involvement of any law. If for the shake argument it is admitted that the dispute does not involve question of law and based on facts, by upholding the same can complaint be treated as there is no cause of action. We have discussed earlier that ‘cause of action’ is a bundle of facts’ and if the facts are involved in the dispute the proceeding will lie against the parties as ‘cause of action’. Our opinion is supported by a decision of Hon’ble National commission reported in 2017(1) CPR pg.425 in case of Rajiv Sharma-Vrs-Dr. Sanjay Garg. Where the Honbl’e National Commission defying the ‘ cause of action’ opined that it is a ‘bundle of facts’.
NO DEFIFCIENCY IN SERVICE
This Forum has discussed the factual aspect of the case alongwith maintainability of the complaint in previous paragraphs.
The facts disclosed from the complaint and written statement of OP-Crop. that Assignment of policy was given to the complainant for its submission to OP-Bank for sanction of a loan against the security of the policy. But, in the proceeding not a single document/evidence is produced before this Forum that the policy assignment was received and acknowledged by the OP-Bank. Further, when it is admitted by the complainant that OP-Corpn. has issued the assignment of policy for sanction of loan, we, observe that in the situation both the Ops have not committed any ‘deficiency’ in service as alleged by the complainant. But the version of parties reveals that neither the complainant has availed the loan nor got the maturity amount of the policy on its maturity and in our observation in paragraph 5 of this order complainant deserves to get his maturity amount against the policy as same the legitimate right of the complainant-policy holder and can not be denied without any substantive grounds and such non-payment of maturity amount definitely caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant-policy holder not for the deficiency in service, but for lack of communicated between the parties. Accordingly, we do not observe any fault, deficiency in service of OP-Bank and freed the OP-Bank from such liability or allegation of deficiency in service.
Having observation reflected above it is directed that OP-LIC(OP No.1 & 2) will release the maturity amount of Rs.40,375/- against the policy of the complainant along with 6 per cent simple rate of interest calculating from dtd.29.08.2016 to till its realization. The order is to be carried out within one month of receipt of this order, failing which action will be initiated against the OP-Corpn.(OP No.1 & 2) as per the provisions of C.P.Act,1986.
Complainant is allowed in part on contest without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this 1st day if August-2017.
