JUDGEMENT.

DATED :25-02-2015.

. It is a complaint case for deficiency of service and non-payment of commutation amount besides payment monthly pension against Policy No.466971265.

The case of the Complainant, in short, is this that the Complainant invested and paid a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- by way of single installment under plan – 181-05(01) in the head of Market Plus and the O.P. issued one valid Policy no.466971265 on 29-08-2006 and the same has already been matured on 29-08-2011.  Soon after the maturity of the said policy, the Complainant procured prescribed forms from the office of the O.P. in order to process the matter for pension option and commutation option and submitted the same before the O.P. for settlement of claim and re-starting of pension payment month by month in terms of the policy conditions.  Thereafter, the Complainant visited the office of the O.P. on several occasions and requested for settlement of maturity claim in respect of the aforesaid policy as per terms & conditions and even he approached the higher official for settlement of the same by letter dated 30-05-2013 but the O.P. did not pay any heed to that effect.  For that reason the Complainant being a retired person has been facing financial problem.  So, due to willful negligence of the O.P. and for physical and mental harassment the Complainant has filed this case praying for direction upon the O.P. to settle the maturity claim in terms of the policy conditions and to settle the maturity claim by way of purchased paying one-third amount of maturity and monthly pension since the date of maturity of the said policy together with interest and further direction

                                                                                                                                                               Page 1 / 4.

             Consumer  Complaint No.42 of  2014.

upon the O.P. for issuing a fresh policy in lieu of matured policy no.466971265 and further direction to pay compensation and litigation cost.

The O.P. has contested this case by filing written version denying allegations of the Complainant contending inter alia that the Complainant is the LIC Market Plus Policy Holder being no.466971265 and invested single premium amount of Rs.1,75,000/- on 29-08-2006 and the date of annuity vests on 29-08-2011.  As per terms of the policy the Complainant can convert the portion of maturity amount to pension a/c.  As per the terms & conditions of the Policy, option by the Policy Holder must have to exercise about that prior to six (6) months from the date of vesting.  In this instant case, the date of vesting was 29-08-2011 and record was extracted and claim master was billed on 30-08-2011 wherein bid value is Rs.2,33,693/-.  The Complainant did not exercise his power regarding vesting on or before 29-08-2011.  Option Form for Annuity Option was generated on 26-11-2011.  Subsequently Option Form of Annuity Option has been submitted by the Complainant after getting it completed with one-third commutation value and yearly pension, on December – 2011. In December – 2011 the Complainant sent reminder regarding payment of one-third commutation amount and yearly pension.  As the Complainant has not sent the Option Letter before six months of the maturity, the entire maturity amount was transferred to Pension Fund.  The Complainant had given option for payment of one-third commutation amount and yearly pension in December – 2011.  Ultimately, officer of the O.P. LICI able to convert one-third commutation on 25-09-2014 amounting to Rs.77,898/- i.e. one-third of total payable amount of Rs.2,33,693/- and remaining in Pension A/c and the Complainant got his said pension amount upto September – 2014 in quarterly from 29-08-2011.  The quarterly pension amount was fixed at Rs.2,773/- and entire pension amount and one-third commuted value are credited to his bank a/c through NEFT System.  The O.P. fulfilled entire prayers of the Complainant.  But due to fault of the Complainant this O.P. is unable to comply the commutation value with pension from the date of maturity but paid that amount on 26-09-2014 and 27-09-2014.  In such cases no new policy has been issued and the existing policy will continue.  The Complainant may claim interest if he fulfilled the terms & conditions of the policy.  The Complainant fails to submit the actual fact about payment because the Complainant not only got the commutation amount but

                                                                                                                                                                 Page 2 / 4.

                     Consumer  Complaint No.42 of  2014.

also got the pension in quarterly from the date of maturity and the next pension amount will be payable on 01-03-2015.  The Complainant ought to have filed an amendment petition in respect of his complaint.  The Complainant is the custodian of original LIC policy but he filed only first page of the policy for redress.  He has not filed entire original policy where other terms & conditions are mentioned.  The status report of the policy printed up to 13-01-2015 has been filed showing payment of one-third commuted value and quarterly pension.  In the circumstances this case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

On the basis of pleadings of both the parties now the question is as to whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

                                                           Decision with reasons.

The Ld. Lawyer for the Complainant has not submitted any written notes of argument but has made same submissions as stated in the complaint.  The Ld. Lawyer has further submitted that during pendency of this case the Complainant has got his one-third commuted value of the matured policy and also quarterly pension.  But the fact remains that the O.P. has paid the said commuted value after causing delay for three-years and accordingly, the Complainant is entitled to get interest as prayed for.  Accordingly, there is no necessity to make amendment of the complaint and the case may be allowed.

The Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. has filed written notes of argument and has made same submissions as stated in the written version.  The Ld. Lawyer has further submitted that there are some terms and conditions in the policy and the Complainant must have exercised his option for commutation six months prior to the date of vesting i.e. 29-08-2011.  But he submitted his option in the month of December – 2011 violating the terms & conditions of the Policy.  For regularization of the said account through NEFT System some time is required and that has been made in this instant case.  For that reason delay has been caused and the O.P. is not in any way liable for that. 

After going through the pleadings of both the parties, documents on record and submissions of the Ld. Lawyers of both sides we find that the computation amount of pension has already been received by the Complainant on 25-09-2014 amounting to Rs.77,898/- as stated in the written argument submitted by the O.P. and quarterly

                                                                                                                                                                Page 3 / 4.

                  Consumer  Complaint No.42 of  2014.

 pension of the Complainant has already been started from the scheduled dated i.e. 29-08-2011.  But the fact remains that the O.P. withheld the said amount and also the pension for about three-years.  It cannot be said to be reasonable that due to delay for computer generating system, the said delay for three-years has been caused to pay all the benefits under the scheme to the Complainant who is a Sr. Citizen.  It is also a fact that since 29-08-2011 this Complainant being a retired person waited till 2014 for getting his said relief which tantamounts deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

It is also a fact that the Complainant was compelled to institute this case for redress before this Ld. Forum on 21-02-2014 and during pendency of this case he got his redress from the O.P.   It is also a fact as the Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. has submitted that the same policy number has been continuing and there is no necessity to issue any new policy.

Considering entire facts & circumstances of this case and the discussions made hereinabove and the physical & mental sufferings and financial loss of the Complainant we find that this case is maintainable and should be allowed with costs and compensation to the extent of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant.

In the circumstances the above point is answered in favour of the Complainant.

In the result the complaint succeeds.

Hence, it is

                                                                     Ordered

That the Complaint Case no.42 of 2014 is allowed on contest against the O.P. with cost of Rs.2,000/-.

That the Complainant is entitled to get Compensation to the extent of Rs.5,000/- from the O.P. for his physical and mental sufferings and financial loss.

That the O.P. is directed to pay Rs.7,000/- (Rs.5,000/- as Compensation + Rs.2,000/- as cost) to the Complainant within two (2) months from the date of this Judgement failing an interest @ 9% p.a. will be accrued on the said amount from the date of this Judgement till realization.

Let a copy of this Judgement be supplied to the parties free of cost as per Rule.

              (L. N. CHATTOPADHYAY)                                                                    (Y. HALDER)

                           Ld. Member                                                                            Ld. President

                                                                                                                                                     Page 4 / 4.