CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PALAKKAD, KERALA
Dated this the 15th day of May, 2012.
Present: Smt. Seena. H, President
: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi. A. K, Member Date of filing: 04/02/2012
CC / 31/ 2012
Shaju.M.J,
S/o. Joseph(L),
Mundokkaran House, Jellippara P.O, - Complainant
Agali Via, Palakkad.
(BY Party in Person)
Vs
The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Mannarkkad Branch,
Pazheri Plaza, Mannarkkad. - Opposite party
(BY ADV. T.P. GEORGE)
O R D E R
BY SMT. BHANUMATHI.A.K, MEMBER
The Complaint in brief:-
During the period of July-August months of the year 2007 notices of LIC were distributed among the people of Jellippara and surrounding regions in Attappadi in Palakkad district. Attracted by the offers given by the LIC the complainant paid three yearly premium of Rs.10,000/- each totalling to Rs.30,000/-. According to the said advertisement if the complainant is surrendering his policy within 5 years he will get Rs.50,000/-. When the complainant was in need of money he surrendered his policy. On contrary to the advertisement the complainant got only Rs.30,936/- as per the cheque No.10071840. Due to the act of LIC complainant suffered monitory loss and mental agony. So the complainant is seeking an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.19,064/- as the offered amount and Rs.50,000/- as the compensation for mental agony.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following contentions.
Opposite party admits that the petitioner has taken a money plus policy bearing number 775957865 on 14/08/2007 with a yearly premium of Rs.10,000/-. He has paid three yearly premium of Rs.10,000/- each totalling to Rs.30,000/-. He has surrendered the policy on 07/06/2011 and an amount of Rs.30,936/- was credited to his account on 08/06/2011. This policy issued to him was LIC's Market Plus plan as per the proposal form submitted by him. In the proposal form itself it is specifically stated that in the policy the investment risk in investment port folio in borne by policy holder himself. LIC's Market Plus is a ULIP (United Linked Insurance Plan) which is subject to market risk. The petitioner opted to invest the amount in growth fund. In growth fund 80% of the amount would be invested in equity shares in the capital market. The term of the policy was for a period of 10 years.
Both parties filed their respective affidavit. Ext. A1 to A3 and Ext. B1 to B3 marked.
Matter heard.
Issues for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party?
2. If so, What is the relief and cost?
Issues I & II
Being attracted by the notice published by LIC, the complainant has taken a Money Plus Policy bearing number 775957865 on 14/08/2007. He has paid three yearly premium of Rs.30,000/-. He has surrendered the policy on 07/06/2011 and an amount of Rs. 30,936/- was received. In the notice it was stated that if the complainant is paying Rs.10,000/- for 3 years and if he is surrendering the policy within 5 years an amount of Rs.50,000/- will be received. But utter surprise to the complainant he was received only Rs.30,936/-. According to the complainant the above act of opposite party is illegal and decisive. So that the complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss.
But in the Ext.B2 document as clause 21 it is stated that “the value of the units as well as the Benefits relating to the policy holder's Fund value are subject to market and other risks and there can be no assurance that the objectives of any of the funds will be achieved......”. Moreover in Ext.A1, the notice, it is written as “ap³Ime {]hÀ¯-\-^-e-§Ä BhÀ¯n-¡m-t\m, BhÀ¯n-¡m-Xn-cn-¡mt\m km[-y-X-bpWv.”
It is true that nowadays a number of person joining in such schemes without fully understanding the terms and conditions of the policy. The customers are misrepresented by either the agent of the Insurance Company or the advertisement. Here the complainant has no case that anyone of the agents of the opposite party came and misrepresented about the terms of the said scheme. According to the Ext.B3 document the complainant is having 2560.356 unit. The NAV value of each unit on the date of surrendering is 12.0825. So that the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.30,936/- (Rupees Thirty thousand nine hundred and thirty six only) that was paid also. The complainant has no disputes regarding the number of units or the NAV value on the date of surrendering.
From the above discussions we are of the view that the complainant miserably failed to prove the case in his favour.
In the result complaint dismissed. No order as to cost
Pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of May, 2012
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/- Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1 - Federal bank cheque No.071842 dt.08/06/2011 Rs.30,936/-(Photocopy)
Ext. A2 – Notice of LIC, Branch Office, Mannarkkad (Original)
Ext.A3 - Letter dt.18/07/2011 sent by the opposite party to the complainant.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext. B1 – Proposal form for LIC's Market Plus Plan dt.13/08/2007 (Photocopy).
Ext. B2 - Market Plus Policy dt.14/08/2007 (Photocopy).
Ext. B3 – Surrender value payment voucher dt.09/06/2011.
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil.
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil.
Cost allowed
No cost allowed.
