SRI R. DEY, MEMBER
The present case has been filed by the complainant praying for payment of due amount of Rs. 16,000/- (approx.) including 10percent interest uptodate, compensation for mental agony of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
The complainant-s case, in a nutshell, is that the complainant started a Jibon Saral Policy to the LIC branch, Tamluk on 21/12/2009 depositing Rs. 36,390/- in total during 3 years relating to the policy no. 498865951. After completion of 3 years of the said policy the complainant applied to the OP for withdrawal as part payment out of the said Rs. 36,390/- on 04-01-2013. After the said application submitted to the OP by the complainant, Rs. 20,488/- was deposited by OP to SBI account of the complainant on 18-01-2013. As per complainant, after 7 days from the date of receiving of said amount the complainant came to know from the Op that the LIC policy had been stopped due to fault of the OP-s office. Subsequently, the complainant frequently went to the OP with his agent but the then Manager of LIC gave false assurance to the complainant that the policy would be started again and an arrangement of loan would be processed if the deposited amount to the complainant-s account by OP again be deposited to LIC (OP) by the complainant. The complainant repeatedly visited OP but having had no result, he applied to the Consumer Affairs Department of Purba Medinipur on 13-11-2013 by consultation of his agent Narayan Bhuian and Sudip Nayek. On 27-03-2014 OP requested the complainant to make a compromise with the fault of the OP-s office without any compensation, hence the case has been filed by the complainant.
The complainant has filed the Xerox copies of LIC policies, premium slips, SBI account passbook, the letter dt. 4-01-2013 written to LIC, Tamluk branch, and a receipt of copy of LIC, a leaflet of LIC Jivan Saral Policy, the letter dt. 22-04-2014 of Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & FBP, Purba Medinipur addressed to the Manager, LIC, Tamluk, the complaint to Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & FBP Purba Medinipur by the complainant on 12-11-2013 to support his pleadings.
The OP has appeared in this case and contested the case by filing WV as also WNA wherein OP has admitted about the said policy and deposited amount to the said policy being no. 498865951 as stated by the complainant in the complaint. According to OP, the complainant filed an application for partial susrrender of the policy in which he was entitled for a sum of Rs. 14,431/- but due to fault of machinery, the above noted policy was fully surrendered and a sum of Rs. 20,488/- was transferred unto complainant-s bank account lying in SBI, Kaktia branch and the sum of Rs. 20,488/.- was the actual surrender value of such policy on that very date. As per OP-s WV, neither the complainant nor his agent came before the appropriate authority to resolve the problem and did not write any letter to the OP. When the OP came to know the facts, then OP has shown his eagerness to rectify his mistake, if the complainant is ready to continue such policy or ready to pay the balance sum of Rs. 6,057/- towards this OP. In WNA the OP stated that the partial surrender value of such policy was Rs. 14,431/- on that very date, but Rs. 20,488/- was transferred to complainant-s bank account as a full surrender value of the said policy. According to OP-s version as stated in WNA, if insured or complainant is ready to pay the balance amount to the OP, then only policy will be effective as previous otherwise not.
The OP has filed a CC of a letter addressed to Sri Manoj Paul on 30-05-2014 mentioning reference no. LICI/Tamluk.
None of the parties adduced any evidence but they have relied upon the averments mentioned in their respect pleadings, which were supported by affidavit, and the documents submitted by them before this forum. Both the parties have submitted their respective W/N/A.
We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, the document including WNA submitted by them on record.
Points for consideration
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Decisions with reasons
Point nos. 1 & 2-
Admittedly, the complainant had started a Jiban Saral Policy on 21-12-2009 and deposited Rs. 36,390/- for the period of 3 years to Jiban Saral policy of OP and as per partial withdrawal application made by the complainant to the OP on 04-01-2013, the OP had transferred or credited Rs. 20,488/- to the savings bank account of SBI, Kaktia bazar branch of the complainant and the complainant received the said amount, which has been seen in the Xerox copy of savings account passbook of the complainant. The complainant had stated in his petition of complaint that he had applied to the OP for partial withdrawal amount from his total deposited premium amount of Rs. 36,390/- and to continue the policy as per leaflet of Jiban Saral policy of LIC for balance amount. From the leaflet filed by the complainant it appears that there is a chance of partial withdrawal of deposited amount after 3 years premium deposit. Accordingly, the complainant had received the amount though the figure of amount as written in complainant-s application addressed to OP on 04-01-2013 does not match with the figure of amount which the complainant had received from the OP on 18-01-2013, but not according to prayer or request of the complainant in view of the fact that the OP took action with regard to the said policy of the complainant by surrendering the same fully instead of partially surrender as opted by the complainant in his said application dt. 04-01-2013 to the OP. The OP has admitted in his written version as well as in his WNA that the said policy was fully surrendered due to mistake done on the part of the OP instead of surrendering the said policy partially and to continue the policy for rest period as opted by the complainant in his letter dt. 04-01-2013. Whether the said mistake or fault was made due to machinery according to the OP but it is true that the said fault was done on the part of the OP and for such fault the complainant can not suffer.
The OP did not mention neither in his WV nor in his WNA as to when or on which date he came to know about the fact of his fault or grievance of the complainant for surrendering fully in relation to the said policy by the OP instead of partial surrender of the policy as opted by the complainant in his application dt. 04-01-2013. The complainant stated in his petition of complainant filed on 14-05-2014 that the OP admitted its fault to surrender fully the policy instead of partial surrender which was admitted by the OP subsequently in his letter dt. 30-05-2014. It is to be noted that the OP did not specifically deny in his WV and WNA the statement of the complainant made in his petition of complaint in paragraph 9. That on 27-03-2014 a meeting was held in the chamber of the OP with the Chief Manager and the complainant and others in connection with the said fault, but the Chief Manager requested the complainant to accept the mistake or fault without any compensation for such fault. So, this statement made in para 9 of the complaint remains undisputed. So we did not find any reason to disbelieve the contention of the complainant that the he had gone to OP for several time for his grievances with regard to full surrender of the policy instead of partial surrender as opted by complainant in his application dt. 04-01-2013.
Such inaction on the part of the OP with regard to rectification of their own fault and to give relief to the complainant in respect of the said policy as opted by him as per his letter dt. 04-01-2013 tantamounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. As such, the complainant is entitled to get relief and compensation.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the discussions made above, we are of the view that it would be justified to direct OP to return by paying the complainant the due deposited rupees 15,902/- of complainant. Apart from that the complainant is also entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,500/- for mental agony and Rs. 1,500/- for litigation cost.
The above two points are, thus, disposed of with the above observations and findings.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the instant case be and the same is allowed against the OP on contest. The OP is directed to pay/return the due deposited Rs. 15,902/- to the complainant along with the compensation of Rs. 2,500/- and litigation cost of Rs. 1,500/- within 40 days from the date of the issuance of this order failing which, the complainant shall have the liberty to execute this order in which case, the penalty of Rs. 100 per day is to be paid by the OP to the complainant from the date of the issuance of the order till the compliance of the order in toto.
