IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF JULY 2020
Present: - Sri.E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President
Smt.S.Sandhya Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
CC.No.38/2018
Babu D.,
Noopuram, Koottany Junction,
V.N.R-30,
KadappakkadaP.O.,Kollam 691008. : Complainant
(By Adv.G.Subha)
V/s
Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,Kollam
Jeevan Jyothi Building residency road,
Kollam 691001 : Opposite party
ORDER
Smt.Sandhya Rani, B.SC, LLB, Member
This is a case based on a consumer complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows.
The complainant was a Senior Grade Assistant in Finance Section of Kerala University. On 14.01.2003 he had taken a policy No.781616885 issued under LIC’s Endowment Plan (with profits) as per plan No.14 and the term of policy was 15 years, with the date of maturity on 14.01.2018. The monthly premium of the policy was Rs.620/- and the same was remitted by salary deduction up to the date of retirement on 14.01.2015. Thereafter the policy was converted into quarterly premium mode and the premium amount Rs.1,861/- was continuously remitted by the complainant without fail till 10/2017. The total premium amount paid by the complainant for the period of 15 years was Rs.1,11,600/-. The matured insurance amount deposited by the respondent LIC on 15.01.2018 in favour of the complainant’s account No.67226200767 in SBI Kadappakkada Branch was Rs.1,62,000/-. The said amount was allowed under three heads ie.Rs.1,00,000/- as matured policy amount Rs.61,000/- as bonus and Rs.1,000/- as additional bonus.
According to the complainant the opposite party LIC has collected an excess amount Rs.11,600/- along with the agreed premium of Rs.1,00,000/-, so he is entitled to get back the said excess sum of Rs.11,600/- collected by the opposite party LIC by way of premium along with the assured policy amount Rs.1,00,000/- and an additional bonus Rs.38,000/-. Thus the complainant is entitled to get Rs.49,600/- more along with the premium sum 1,00,000/-. By collecting Rs.1,11,600/- instead of sum assured Rs.1,00,000 /- the respondent has committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
The opposite party LIC resisted the complaint by filing version admitting the fact that the complainant had taken a policy under LIC’s Endowment Plan (with profits) as per policy No.781616885 on 14.01.2003 while he was working as a Senior Grade Assistant in University of Kerala and he had remitted monthly premium of Rs.620/- by way of salary deduction up to his retirement and thereafter the premium was paid quarterly till maturity date on October 2017 and the sum assured with bonus amounting to Rs.1,62,000/- was remitted to the complainant’s A/c No.67226200767 with State Bank of India, Kadappakkada Branch, Kollam. Here the contention raised by the complainant is that he was entitled to get Rs.2,00,000/- instead of Rs.1,62,000/- received as maturity benefit. The premium amount calculated by the respondent was on the basis of Plan, Term, Age ,sum assured, mode of payment and age of the person who is taking policy. At the time of taking policy the policy holder was having 44 years hence the premium amount was calculated for the age of 44 years. Moreover the LIC is collecting premium not as a deposit like banking business but it was for insuring the life of the assured. So payment of premium cannot be equated with a deposit with LIC. The premium received by the insurer is the consideration amount for the risk cover provided to the insured.
While executing the Discharge Form with bank account details in the format sent by LIC, the complainant was well aware of the full and final settlement of his policy was Rs.1,62,000/- but he did not make any protest regarding the due amount hence the new claim is barred by estoppel.
All the insurance policies are based on the principles of utmost good faith (Uberimmaefidei) and each policy is a contract, the terms and conditions of which are clearly printed on the policy documents itself and there is no specific contention that the opposite party acted contrary to any of the policy conditions. All subsequent claims will be settled only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy.
There is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of respondent as alleged by the complainant. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost to the respondent for unnecessarily dragged into this complaint.
In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of respondent as alleged in the complaint?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get excess amount as claimed in the complaint than the received sum assured Rs.1,62,000/-.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/
- Reliefs and costs.
Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A5 documents. Evidence on the side of respondent consists of oral evidence of DW1 and Ext D1 to D3 documents.
Respondent’s counsel filed notes of argument.
Heard both sides.
Point No.1 to 3
For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these 3 points are considered together. Admittedly the complainant is the policy holder as per Ext.A1/D2 policy. It is also an admitted fact that the amount assured in Ext.A1/D2 policy is Rs.1,00,000/- and monthly premium was Rs.620/- that the complainant has remitted the entire policy by way of monthly payment till his retirement from service. Thereafter he paid quarterly premiumRs.1,861/-. However there is no dispute that the complainant has remitted premium without fail till the maturity date. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant has paid altogether Rs.1,11,600/- as premium for a period of 15 years. But the amount assured is only Rs.1,00,000/-. Apart from the maturity policy amount Rs.61,000/- is paid as bonus and Rs.1,000/- paid as additional bonus. The grievance of the complainant is that though he paid Rs.1,11,600/- within a period of 15 years as premium he received back only an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as maturity policy amount and there is a difference of Rs.11,600/- on that count. The opposite party LIC has admitted to have collected an excess amount Rs.11,600/- but would contend that the premium amount received by the insurer is the consideration for the risk cover provided to the insured. It is further contended that each insurance policy contains its terms and conditions and privileges which are clearly narrated in the policy document and the same are the basis of the insurance contract between the policy holder and the insurer. It is pertinent to point out that even the complainant has no case that the opposite party insurance company has violated any of the terms and conditions of Ext.A1/D2 policy documents. In the circumstances we are of the view that as the insurance company has acted strictly in terms of written policy document it cannot be held that the insurance company has committed any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice.
It is argued on behalf of opposite party that LIC policy contract is an Uberimmaefidei contract based on utmost good faith and the contract is governed strictly by the terms and conditions of the policy. No court tribunal or Forum is expected to add , subtract or interpret the terms of such contract against the spirit of the terms and conditions in the policy. We find much Force in the above argument of the learned counsel for the opposite party insurance company.
It is further argued by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the complainant has filed the complaint by considering that LIC has been collecting premium as a deposit but it is crystal clear that LIC business is entirely different
from the Banking business and the LIC has been collecting premium for the insurance of the Life of the assured. Therefore the amount paid as premium will not yield any interest as Bank deposits and at the end of the period the entire principal amount with interest will not be returned as claimed by the complainant. It is well settled that the premium received by the insurer is the consideration amount for the risk cover provided to the insured. In view of the materials discussed about we find no merit in the claim of the complainant.
It is further to be point out that the complainant has not disputed the contention of the opposite party insurance company that the complainant has executed the Discharge Forum along with his bank account details in the format issued by the branch office of the LIC Kollam and returned the duly filled up format to the same to the branch to enable maturity claim processing. Complainant has also not denied the claim of the opposite party that LIC will credit altogether Rs.1,62,000/-being Rs.1,00,000/- as sum assured and Rs.62,000/- being bonus and additional bonusat the bank account of the former and the said amount was clearly printed in the discharge form which has been duly filled up by the complainant and returned to the branch office. The opposite party would further claim that the complainant has received the amount of Rs,1,62,000/- in full and final settlement of the maturity claim under his policy and that complainant has not raised any protest whatsoever regarding the amount payable as maturity claim. In the circumstances it is clear present claim is barred by the principle of estoppel as contended by the opposite party.
On evaluating the entire materials available on record we hold that there is no merit in the complaint and the same is only to be dismissed. Points answered accordingly.
Point No.4
In the result the complaint stands dismissed. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt.Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 17th day of July 2020.
E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-
S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-
STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-
Forwarded/by order
Senior Superintendent
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-
PW1 : Babu D.
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.A1 : Policy
Ext.A2 : Policy details
Ext.A3 : Policy details
Ext.A4 : receipt of the requirements
Ext.A5 : copy of Bank account pass book
Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-
DW1 : A.S.Geetha
Documents marked for opposite party:-
Ext.D1 : discharge form for maturity claim(original)
Ext.D2 : policy bond (original)
Ext.D3 : Proposal form (original)
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim: Sd/-
S.SandhyaRani:Sd/-
Stanly Harold:Sd/-
Forwarded/by order
Senior Superintendent
