IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2013.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.52/2013 (Filed on 24.04.2013)
Between:
Sudha Gopinathan,
Parackamannil Veedu,
Kanjeettukara.P.O.,
Ayroor South.
(By Adv. Soni. P. Bhaskar) ….. Complainant
And:
The Branch Manager,
LIC of India,
Ranny Branch,
Otharai Square,
Near Perumpuzha Bus Stand,
Ranny.
(By Adv. K.T. Thomas) ….. Opposite party
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case is as follows: Complainant have taken a 5 year market plus policy from the opposite party by paying Rs. 1,50,000/- on 10.08.2007 and it matured on 10.08.2012. After the maturity date complainant contacted the opposite party several times and demanded the refund amount with divident and made application for the same. But the opposite party informed that the amount was transferred to pension policy scheme. Complainant had never requested the opposite party to transfer the amount to pension scheme. Such transfer is made by the opposite party without any consent and without any intimation to the complainant. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Therefore, on 09.03.2013 complainant sent legal notice to the opposite party demanding the invested amount along with dividend. But the opposite party did not yielded the complainant’s request. Hence this complaint for getting the invested amount of Rs.1,50,000 along with dividend and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- along with cost of this proceedings.
3. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following contentions: According to the opposite party, complainant had joined in the market plus policy which is a unit linked pension policy. As per the policy conditions, on maturity, the proceeds will be transferred to pension fund and payment can be made by pension only as per the option to be given by the policy holder. For transferring the maturity amount to pension fund the consent of the policy holder is not required in view of the specific stipulation in the policy document that the maturity amount will be given only as pension. The policy document is the basis of the contract between the opposite party and the policy holder, wherein it is very clearly stated that the maturity amount will be given only as pension. Opposite party had acted strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the market plus policy. Therefore the allegation of deficiency in service is unsustainable. Though there is no provision for surrender of pension policy, opposite party has taken a lenient and humanitarian approach in view of the petitioner’s request for surrendering policy on medical ground and has permitted the payment of surrender value and opposite party is ready to pay an amount of Rs. 1,67,968/- towards surrender value on furnishing the signed discharge form and original policy to the opposite party. Therefore, the act of the opposite party is legal and has not caused any mental agony and hardship to the petitioner. Hence opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint as they have not committed any deficiency in service.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and DW1 and Ext.A1 to A5 series and Ext.B1. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
6. The Point:- Complainant’s allegation is that she had taken a Market Plus policy on 10.08.2007 from the opposite party with maturity period of 5 years which is due on 10.08.2012. After the maturity period, complainant demanded the return of the amount with divident. But the opposite party informed the complainant that the amount was transferred to the pension policy scheme. Opposite party transferred the amount without the consent of the complainant and without giving any intimation to the complainant. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same.
7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of her chief examination along with 5 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A5 series. Ext. A1 is the policy certificate issued on 10.08.2007. Ext.A2 is the copy of legal notice issued to the opposite party. Ext.A3 is the postal receipt of Ext.A2. Ext. A4 is the acknowledgment card of Ext.A2. Ext.A5 series are the required forms and documents necessary for surrendering the policy. Ext.A5 is the consent letter for surrender. Ext.A5(a) is the medical certificate of the complainant issued on 02.01.2013. Ext.A5(b) is the copy of application submitted by the complainant before opposite party. Ext.A5(c) is the receipt required for getting the surrender value of the policy. Ext.A5(d) is the Bank Account Statement of complainant. Ext.A5(e) is the declaration form of LIC.
8. On the other hand the contention of the opposite party is that Market Plus Policy is a unit linked pension policy. As per the policy conditions the maturity value will be transferred to pension fund and payment can be made by pension only according to the option given by policy holder. Consent of the complainant is not necessary for such transfer. Since the policy holder has opted for surrender of the policy on medical grounds, the opposite party has taken a lenient view and permitted to surrender the policy as a special case, though there is no provision for surrender. Opposite party is ready to pay the surrender value of Rs.1,67,958/- to the complainant. Therefore they contended that there is no deficiency in service from their part.
9. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, the legal manager of the opposite party filed proof affidavit along with one document. On the basis of the proof affidavit he was examined as DW1 and the document produced is marked as Ext.B1. Ext.B1 is the surrender value calculation statement of the complainant’s policy.
10. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that parties have no dispute with regard to the amount paid or the maturity period. The only dispute between the parties is with regard to the transfer of the amount to pension scheme. According to the complainant, such a transfer is made without giving any intimation and without her consent. But opposite party’s contention is that for transferring the maturity amount to pension fund consent of the policy holder is not required as there is specific stipulation in the policy document for the transfer. However, it is seen from the evidences, opposite party has decided to pay Rs. 1,67,958/- considering the application of the complainant for surrendering the policy on medical grounds.
11. On the basis of the contentions of the parties, we have gone through the terms and conditions of the policy in question. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, opposite party has got the right to transfer the maturity amount to the pension fund. Since insurance is a contract between the insured and the insurer, parties are bound to follow the terms and conditions of the contract. The evidence in this case clearly show that opposite parties had acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, we find no deficiency in service against the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant and hence the allegations of the complainant are found unsustainable. However, there is an offer from the side of the opposite party that they are ready to pay an amount of Rs. 1,67,968/- as the surrender value. So this complaint is disposed as follows:-
(i) The complainant is at liberty to continue in the policy as per the terms and conditions of the policy, if the complainant desires so, or
(ii) In the alternative, the complainant is allowed to receive the surrender value of Rs.1,67,968/- as offered by the opposite party or the present surrender value whichever is high. Parties are directed to comply this order within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
(iii) In the nature and circumstances of the case, no orders for cost and compensation.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of June, 2013.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Sudha Gopinath
Exhibit marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Policy certificate issued on 10.08.2007 in the name of the
complainant to the opposite party.
A2 : Copy of legal notice dated 08.03.2013 issued by the
complainant to the opposite party.
A3 : Postal receipt of Ext.A2
A4 : Acknowledgment card of Ext.A2.
A5 : Photocopy of application for surrender.
A5(a): Medical certificate of the complainant issued by Dr. Job
Kurian on 02.01.2013.
A5(b): Letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party. A5(c): Receipt of surrender value of the policy.
A5(d): Bank Account Statement of complainant.
A5(e): Declaration form of LIC.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
DW1 : Jose. P.T.
Exhibit marked on the side of the complainant:
B1 : Surrender value calculation statement of the complainant’s
policy.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Sudha Gopinathan, Parackamannil Veedu,
Kanjeettukara.P.O., Ayroor South.
(2) The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Ranny Branch,
Otharai Square, Near Perumpuzha Bus Stand,
Ranny.
(3) The Stock File.
