BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 14 of 2014
Smti. Shefali Das, {For self & on behalf of 159 Policy holder}
Vill- Rengti, P.O- Jaiforpur,
P.S- Silchar, Dist- Cachar, Assam. Complainant.
-V/S-
1. The Life Insurance Corporation of India (L.I.C.I),
Respresented by its Chief Manager
Silchar Division, Silchar, Meherpur, Cachar, Assam. O.P No.1.
2. The Branch Manager, Micro Insurance Department.
Silchar Divisional Office, Silchar-15 O.P No.2.
3. The Nabarun Sangha, Represented by its President.
Durganagar Part-IV, P.O. Udharbond, P.S. Udharbond,
A Corporate Agent of L.I.C.I. Vide Agent Code No.- 83006R049,
P.O- Udharbond, Cachar, Assam. O.P.No.3.
4. Kishore Bhattacharjee
Durganagar Part-IV
P.O- Udharbond. Dist- Cachar O.P.No.4
Present: - Sri BishnuDebnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared: - Mr. Ansarul Hoque, Advocate for the complainant.
Mr. Prasenjit Deb, Advocate for the O.P.No.1
Mr. Jagodish Barbhuiya, Advocate for the O.P.No.3
Mr. Shekhar Das, Advocate for the O.P.No. 4
Date of Evidence 22-01-15, 25-02-15, 07-05-15
Date of written argument 30-11-17, 10-05-18
Date of oral argument 04-06-2018, 07-09-2018
Date of judgment 27-09-2018
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Sri Bishnu Debnath,
- This complaint is brought under the provision of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by complainant Smti. Shefali Das for herself and 159 (One Hundred fifty nine) others against the Life Insurance Corporation, Silchar Division No.1 and 3 (Three) others for award of matured value of sum insured and compensation for deficiency of service.
- Brief facts:-
The complainant and 159 others mentioned in the schedule attached to the complainant purchased Micro Insurance Policies in various dates through authorized agent of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The authorized agent used to collect the premium from the complainant and others and issue receipt. But all on a sudden the authorized agent stopped to collect the premium with effect from 30-04-2013. Subsequently, the complainant on behalf of all herself and 159 others Micro Policy holder approached to the Life Insurance Corporation, SilcharDivision No.1 and got information that due to non-collection of the premium all those policies have been lapsed. Hence, the instant complaint brought for reliefs.
- The Life Insurance Corporation of India and in its Branch Manager of Silchar Division in their joint W/S stated inter-alia that their authorized agent was Nabarun Sangha and accordingly issued premium acknowledgement card to that agent for distribution to the bonafide policy holder for collection of Micro Insurance premium under the agency. The said authorized agent empowered 4 (Four) persons including Kishore Bhattacharjee to collect premium. The aforesaid O.Ps also stated that Micro Insurance Agent software also provide to the Micro Insurance Agent, where the status of the policies procured by the agent could be verified. Anyhow, the authorized agent represented by its General Secretary Sri Kishore Bhattacharjee stopped collection of premium suddenly on 27-08-2013 for which the Life Insurance Corporation of India has refused to make payment of maturity benefits.
- Of course, in Annexure A to the W/S they described the status of the Insurance Policies in 6 (Six) types. As per the O.P No.1, the Type-21 of the policies are still in force and policy holder can deposit the balance premium in the usual process. The Type-31 mentioned in Annexure-A are of the policies in which premium paid for more than 2 (Two) years and after maturity may get its reduced paid up value by submitting the policy documents along with other relevant papers or the policy holder may deposit remaining premium through usual process or directing to Life Insurance Corporation of India or surrender if it completes 3 (Three) years and then surrender value will be paid. As regard Type-41 in Annexure- A premium paid less than 2 (Two) years and maturity date is already over. The said policies are lapsed and cannot be revived or nothing to be payable. However, in other policies premium though paid less than 2 (Two) years but policies not reached to maturity date. So, those policies though lapsed can be revived by observing necessary formalities. Status of Type-81 policies- The policy holder surrender the policy and surrender value paid to the policy holder. Status of Type-72 policy- These policies have been matured with paid up value and policy holders can take the value by submitting necessary papers. Status Type-83 policies- Policy have been matured and value has been paid to the holder of the policies.
- The O.P No.3 the Navarun Sangha represented by its President in his W/S stated inter-alia that keeping in dark the present and other executive member of the Club Sri Kishore Bhattacharjeet taking advantage of his post as Secretary of that club entered into an agreement with Life Insurance Corporation of India for work as Micro Insurance Agent and as such the Navarun Sangha expelled Sri Bhattacharjee from the club for which the club is not liable to pay any compensation for illegal acts of Sri Bhattacharjee. Kishore Bhattacharjee being O.P No.4 in his W/S denied all the allegation levelled against him.
- During hearing the complainant submitted deposition and exhibited many insurance policies and other papers. The O.P No.1 and 2 also submitted deposition of Sri Nirmal Laikham and exhibited status of 239 (Two Hundred Thirty Nine) insurance policies and another letter vide Ext-A and Ext-B respectively. The O.P No.3 Sri Nirmal Kanti Roy submitted deposition and exhibited many documents to establish the fact that Sri Kishore Bhattacharjee has been expelled from the club membership due to his illegal activities regarding Micro Insurance Policies. The O.P No.3 also submitted deposition of Sri Ajoy Deb Mazumder. The O.P.No.3 further submitted deposited of Mrinal Kanti Bhattacharjee and O.P.No.4 submitted his deposition.
- After closing evidence the Complainant’s Advocate submitted written argument. Similarly the Ld. Advocate of O.P.No.1 & 2 submitted written argument. The O.P.No.3 also submitted written argument but O.P.No.4 did not file any written argument. I have perused the evidence on record and perused written argument. None has orally argued the case except the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant and Ld. Advocate of O.P.No.3.
- In this case it is admitted fact between Complainant and O.P.No.1 & 2 in view of W/S and deposition of the Sri. Nirmal Laikham that O.P.No. 3 is authorized Agent of the O.P.No.1 & 2 for selling Micro Insurance Product and O.P.No.4 being the secretary of the O.P.No.3 was approved person to collect the monthly premium of Micro Insurance Policies vide Ext.XVII appointment letter. But Plea of the O.P.No.1 & 2 that the O.P.No.4 stopped to collect the premium for which some policies have been lapsed. The detail status of the policies has been described in Ext.A.
- As the O.P.No.1 & 2 admitted that the authorized agent stopped to collect the premium from Policy holder, so, it is duty and responsibility of the O.P.No.1 & 2 to make alternative arrangement for collection of premium prior to keep the policies in lapsed condition. But from the evidence on record I do not find any convincing material to conclude that the O.P.No.1 & 2 took endeavor to collect the outstanding premium from the Policies holder.
- It is to be mention here that the Complainant and other 159 number of Policy holder purchased the Micro Life Insurance Policy of the O.P.No.1 & 2 through the Authorized Agent and as per term & condition of the Micro Insurance Regulation the agent is authorized to collect the premium from the Policy holder. It is also established fact in view of exhibited premium collection cards that the O.P.No.4 collected premium for some period but suddenly stopped collection for the reason best known to him. So, some of the Policies Lapsed due to the disservice of the O.P.No.1 & 2 and the person who was authorized to collect the premium form the Policies holder.
- In this case the O.P.No.3 by adducing evidence tried to convince this District Forum that Nabarun Sangha never entered into agreement with O.P.No.1 & 2 to act as Agent to collect premium or sell the Micro Insurance Policies to the Complainant & others, rather the O.P.No.4 by using the banner of the O.P.No.3 illegally enter in to agreement to act as Agent and committed illegal activities, so they are denying the Ext. XVII. Accordingly, by adducing oral evidence of Nirmal Kanti Roy, and 2 (two) others tried to established the fact that Kishore Bhattacharjee was expelled from the club. Anyhow, the O.P.No.1 & 2 stated inter alia that O.P.No.3 was the authorized Agent as per official record. But no copy of agreement and copy of Resolution of the O.P.No.3 produced to establish the fact the O.P.No.3 agreed to act as Agent of the O.P.No.1 & 2 for selling Micro Insurance Policies and to collect monthly premium from the Policies holder. As such Ext.XX, the Deed of Agreement is not conclusive proof of the fact that O.P. No. 3 is Authorized Agent.
- That is why, in this case it is concluded that the O.P.No. 4 acted to collect premium of Micro Insurance Policies from the Policy holder without approval of the O.P.No.3. Hence, O.P.No.3 is not at all liable for payment of any compensation for disservice caused by O.P.No.4 to the Policy holders. Rather in view of evidence of O.P.No.4 , I do not find any convincing material to conclude that he acted to collect premium from Policy holder and suddenly stopped collection as per advice of the O.P.No.3.
- Thus, in this case I find disservice of both the Life Insurance Corporation of India and O.P.No.4. Thus, both the O.P.No.1 & 2 and O.P.No.4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Forty thousand) only for disservice to the 160 number of Policy holder of this case and also liable to pay cost of the proceeding of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only. In addition of the above the Insurance Company is liable to pay reduced paid up value of the Lapsed Policies on the basis of Premium payment cards of the Policy holders without deduction of any penalty to the Policy holder or their legal representative as the case may be and ask to receive outstanding Insurance Premium from the Policy holder without any interest for the Policies, which are not yet lapsed, if the policy holder deposit the outstanding premium within 60 days from today. The O.P. No. 1 & 2 and O.P. No.4 are to make arrangement for payment of aforesaid amount of award within 45 days from today. In default Interest at the rate of 10% per annum to be added with the aforesaid awarded amount with effect from the date of defaulter till realization of full.
- The above O.Ps are directed to pay amount of compensation and cost of the proceeding of total Rs.2,40,000 + Rs.10,000 = Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand) only to the name the District Consumer Forum and on receiving the same the total realized amount aforesaid will be distributed to the Complainant and 159 number of other Policy holders in equal share.
- With the above this case is disposed of on contest. Supply free certified copy of Judgment to the parties of this litigation. Given under mu hand and seal of this District Forum on this the 27th day of September, 2018.
