IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF April 2018
Present: - Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President
Sri. M.Praveen Kumar,Bsc, LLB ,Member
CC.142/2015
Dr.Kishor Pankan, Ph,D,MBA : Complainant
S/o Pankajakshan
AI Hosn University
P.O.Box-3876
Abudhabi, UAE
Represented by Power of Attorney holder
Sri. Pankajakshan, residing at Sony Sadanam
Kilikollor P.O, Kollam
[By Adv.B.Dilip, Kollam]
V/S
1. Life Insurance Corporation of India: Opposite parties
Rep: by the Branch Manager
LIC Building , Residency Road
Chinnakkada, Kollam – 691001
2. The Divisional Manager
Life Insurance Corporation of India
LIC Building, Residency Road
Chinnakkada, Kollam - 691001
[By Adv.K.Jayakrishnan, Kollam]
ORDER
SRI. M. PRAVEEN KUMAR, MEMBER
The case is based on a complainant filed by Dr.Kishor Pankan represented by his father and at or me Pankajakshan against two opposite parties seeking refund the premium amount of Rs.3,33,560/- and a compensation of 5 lakhs rupees and cost of the proceedings .
(2)
Complainant case is that the complainant is a Pravasi Malayalee who works at Abudhabi, UAE. He was having a pension plan with the opposite parties with policy No.785092706.Maturity value of the policy was (50,00,000/-). Half yearly premium was Rs.1,22,620/-. Complainant was continuously paying the premium and paid a sum of Rs.7.35 Lakhs as premium and was ready to continue with the policy. Complainant has another policy with the respondents. Since the respondents attitude to the complainant was irregular, irresponsible , perverse, complainant suffered severe service deficiency and unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant decided to withdraw from both the policies. In the present case the complainant paid a sum of Rs.7,35,000/- as premium and requested to return the entire amount of Rs.7,35,000/-. But the opposite party return back only Rs.4,01,440/- on 31/01/2014 instead of Rs. 7,35,000/-. So there is a total loss of Rs.3,33,560/-for the complainant in this matter with benefits, interest etc. Only an amount of Rs.4,01,440/-was transferred into the account of the complainant by the opposite parties. When it was enquired to the opposite parties they ridiculed the complainant and also refused to give a valid reason for giving back such a small amount. Detailed statement of account was also refused by the opposite parties to the complainant. For this purpose the complainant had to travel several times to India to discuss this matter with the opposite parties. This act of the opposite parties amounts to gross deficiency in service and their attitude in this regard by holding the amount of the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice.
The Opposite parties took a hostile attitude towards the complainant and returned back only an amount which is lower than the real returnable amount thereby the complainant suffered heavy monetary loss from the opposite parties. The procedure adopted by the opposite parties towards the complainant in the
(3)
above said policy is highly irregular and perverse. Hence the complainant approached the Forum for getting back the balance amount of Rs. 3,33,560/-along with 12% interest from the date of request to surrender the policy and a compensation of Rs.5 lakks along with cost of proceedings.
Opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed written version. On their version they admitted that Policy No. 785092706 dated 25/01/2011 was issued to the complainant (Kishore Pankan, Sony Sadanam, Kilikolloor P.O, Kollam District) with a term of 15 years, death sum assured is Rs.50,00,000/-, date of commencement of the policy was 25/01/2011 and date of maturity is on 25/01/2026. Half yearly premium is Rs.1,22,620/-. Policy holder has paid Rs.7,35,720/-.(Rs.1,22,620 X 6) as the premium . On their version they contended that complainant is having another case before this Forum numbered as CC.153/2014 claiming refund of the premiums was paid for two and half years only (Policy No.784492195) This case is pending before this Forum.
LIC can act only in accordance and within the limits of the policy terms and conditions printed on the policy itself. In this case complainant has enjoyed life insurance coverage of Rs.50 lakhs from 25/01/2012 to 30/01/2014 (3 years and 6 days) In such a case how can he claim the refund of the entire amount of Rs.7,35,720/- along with interest at 12% per annum on 3,34,280/- (claimed only Rs. 3,33,560/-and a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs from the respondent. As per the policy conditions 80% of the maturity sum assured is payable as the surrender value for policies with Plan No.165 (Jeevan saral Policy) where the premium has been paid for at least 3 continuous years . In this case Sri.Kishore Pankan has paid premiums for 3 continuous years and hence the Policy acquired a surrender value. The surrender value is calculated as follows :-
(4)
Maturity sum assured for 3 years premium paid for age 37 and term 15 years for monthly premium of Rs.100/- is Rs.2509/-.
Monthly Premium for this policy is Rs.20,000/- (Half yearly Premium excluding non refundable Health Extra is Rs.1,20,000/-. Hence monthly premium is Rs.20,000/-.
Maturity sum assured = Rs.2509/- X (Rs.20,000/- Rs.100)= Rs.501800/-
Surrender value = 80% of maturity sum assured. That is 80 % of Rs.501800/-= Rs.401440/-(Rupees Four Lakhs One Thousand Four Hundred and Forty only). This surrender value was paid to Sri.Kishore Pankan by NEFT on 31/01/2014.
According to the opposite parties there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties. As per the policy conditions surrender value of this policy is only Rs.401440/- which was already paid to Sri.Kishore Panakan.
There is no cause of action for the complaint. Surrender value of the policy is made in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. The opposite party further prays to accept the contentions of this respondents and to dismiss the complaint Under Section 26 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 with costs of the opposite parties.
In view of the above pleadings the points that would arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the policy premium of an amount of Rs.3,33,560/- with interest from opposite parties ?
2.Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties ?
3.Whether the complainant is entitle to get the reliefs as claimed in the complaint.
(5)
4. Reliefs and costs?
Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 documents, Mr.Sreekumar.S. working as Manager (Legal Housing Property Finance ) representing opposite parties has been examined as DW1 and got marked as Exts D1 to D6.
Counsel appearing for both parties has advanced argument and filed notes of argument also.
Points No.1 to 3:- For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these 3 points are considered together. Admitted case of the parties is that opposite parties had issued Policy Number 785092706 to the complainant on 25/01/2011, which named as LIC’s Jeevan Saral (Plan No.165) with a term of 13 years, death sum assured is Rs.50,00,000/- date of commencement of the policy was 25/01/2011 and maturity is on 21/01/26, half year premium is Rs.1,22,620/-.Premium was paid upto half year ending on December 2013. Kishor Pankan paid premiums for three years ie complainant had paid Rs.7,35,720/- (Rs.1,22,620 X6) as the premium for the first three years.
Here the crucial question arise for consideration is whether complainant is eligible /entitled to get an amount of Rs.3,33,560/- with interest from opposite parties. Counsel for the complainant argued that complainant paid Rs.7,35,720/- as premium but opposite parties had given an amount of Rs.4,01,440/- only and opposite parties not given an amount of Rs.3,33,560/- to the complainant. According to opposite parties, complainant had joined the policy after understanding the features of terms and conditions . In this case complainant surrender the policy on 30/01/2014 and he is eligible to get the surrender value as per clause 4(a) of terms and conditions printed on policy documents and detailed calculations were shown in the D4 document.
(6)
Counsel for the complainant brought our attention that there is several hand written arithmetical calculations and which are without any basis and no accounts officer or authority calculated/verified the D4 document.DW1 would admit during cross examination that “ Ext.D4  [mcmfw sh«pw Xncp-¯-ep-Ifpw Dv. D4 -  BcpsSbpw H¸pw koepw CÃm Bcv \ÂIn-sbt¶m Bcv X¿m-dm-¡n-sbt¶m ]d-bp-¶nÔ DW1 further admits that “ D1 {]Imcw clause 4 A A\p-k-cn-¨mWv refund sNbvXXv. Sn clause 4A bn F{X iX-am\w XpItb sImSp-¡mhp F¶v ]d-ªn-«nà ”. DW1 would further admit during cross examination that “ D3 bn Rs.4,01,440/- cq] F§s\ In«n-sb¶v IW-¡p-IÄ tcJ-s¸-Sp-¯n-bn-«nÔ. D1 to D6  Rs.4,01,440/- cq] F§s\ In«n-sb¶v IW-¡p-IÄ tcJ-s¸-Sp-¯n-bn-«nÔ. But DW1 would claim that F§s\ XpI In«n-sb¶v ImWn-¡p-¶-XmWv D3.
But on verification of D3 we have not seen the calculation of the amount . How the opposite parties calculated the amount of Rs.4,01,440/- as surrender value is not properly explained . On verification of clause 4 (a) of Ext.D1 policy. we have not understood the ways and means by which the surrender value has to be calculated . Even according to DW1 clause 4(a) bn F{X iX-am\w XpItb sImSp-¡mhp F¶p ]d-ªn-«nÃ.
The rules for calculating surrender value in this case is not produced nor explained by DW1 when he was in the box . Moreover the calculations seen in the D4 is not authenticated by any authorized officer by putting his seal and signature. In the circumstances the entries shown in the D4 document cannot relied upon especially when the complainant has not admitted the calculations and challenged the same. In the circumstances we are of the view that the complainant is eligible to get the entire premium amount which has been paid till he stopped the payment after 3 years except the amount already received.
(7)
As the opposite parties have not paid the entire amount received from the policy holder as per the terms of the policy , there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get the balance premium amount Rs.3,33,560/- along with reasonable interest.
According to complainant due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of opposite parties he has sustained mental agony and other losses . In view of the facts and circumstances brought out in evidence we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and costs Rs.5000/-. Points answered accordingly.
Points No.4
In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms . Opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,33,560/- with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing the complaint (17/06/2015) till realization , Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as costs of the proceedings to the complainant within 45 days from today. Failing which complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.3,83,560/- with interest @12% per annum from 17/06/2015 till realization along with costs of the proceedings (Rs.5000) from the opposite parties jointly and severally and from their assets.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt.Vijimole.G transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30Th day of April 2018.
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
M.Praveen Kumar: Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
(8)
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant
PW1:- Pankajakshan
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.P1:- Copy of power of attorney
Ext.P2:- Renewal premium receipts of policy
Ext.P3:- Renewal Premium acknowledgment receipt
Ext.P4:- Copy of letter
Witnesses examined for the opposite parties
Ext.DW1:- Sreekumar.S
Documents marked for the opposite parties
Ext.D1:- Original policy certificate
Ext.D2:- Original proposal form
Ext.D3:- Form.No.5074 BO
Ext.D4:- Original surrender value quotation dated 29/01/2014
Ext.D5:- Original surrender value voucher dated 31/01/2014
Ext.D6:- Original of NEFT and transactions
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
M.Praveen Kumar: Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
