- This is a petition filed by one Sri Jyotirmoi Phukan (hereinafter referred as the petitioner) against the Life Insurance Corporation Of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the opposite party) U/S 12 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for recovery of money, compensation and other relief.
- The fact and circumstances for filing of the aforesaid petition as narrated by the petitioner are as follows:-
The complainant, namely, Jyotirmoi Phukan along with his wife Monmi Phukan opened two policies with the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Nagaon Branch and accordingly, opposite party issued policy vide policy number 482592932 in the name of the complainant and policy No. 482592932 in the name of the wife of the complainant. Both the policies were Market link policies and on maturity, both the policies were surrendered before the L.I.C. on 21-07-2014 and the amount of the policy of his wife was fixed at Rs.1,71,288/- which was deposited in her bank amount but the amount of the policy of the complainant was fixed at Rs.1,64,000/- which was deposited in his bank account on 02-08-2014. The complainant submitted that due to the slow process of the opposite party in releasing fund, the matured amount of his policy became less as the market slipping by several points. The complainant further submitted that there was a gross negligence on the part of opposite party in releasing fund towards his policy by taking 8 days delay and he received less amount than the amount due on the date of surrender for which the complainant has to suffer irreparable loss and such acts, on the part of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service. Hence, this claim petition is before this Commission praying for the relief.
The opposite party filed their written version denying all the claim of the petitioner leveled against the opposite party. By their written version, the opposite party pleaded inter- alia that there is no cause of action for the complainant to file the petition, that the petition does not attract the provision of section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act and that the petition is unsustainable in law and liable to be dismissed. The opposite party further submitted that there was no negligence or delay on their part in closing the L.I.C. policy of the complainant and there was no deficiency of service on their part while the complainant has filed this petition on false statement for wrongful gain for which he is not entitled to any relief. Under the above premises, the opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint petition.
- Upon pleading of parties the following points are found for discussion and decision in the case.
- Whether the opposite party caused unnecessary delay in closing the L.I.C. policy No. 482592932 in the name of the complainant for which the complainant suffered loss of Rs.7,282/-and such act on the part of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service?
- Whether the claimant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?
4. The complainant has filed evidence in affidavit of his own and his wife Monmi Phukan and also exhibited several documents in support of his claim. The opposite party neither cross-examined the P.Ws. nor adduced any evidence in support of their written version.
5. Written argument filed by the complainant side and perused the same.
6. Decision and reasons thereof:-
7. For the sake of brevity both the Point (i) & (ii) are taken jointly for discussion and decision:-
The claim of the complainant is that he and his wife Monmi Phukan opened two policies with the opposite which were marked link policies and on their maturity, the two policies were surrendered before the opposite party but due to necessary delay in releasing the fund towards his policy, he got less amount than the amount due on the date of surrender. In support of his claim, he as P.W.1 adduced evidence to the effect that he along with his wife Monmi Phukan opened two policies with the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Nagaon Branch vide policy number 4825929320 in his name and policy No. 482592932 in the name of his wife and both the policies were Market link policies. His further evidence is that on maturity, both the policies were surrendered before the L.I.C. on 21-07-2014 and the amount of the policy of his wife was fixed at Rs.1,71,288/- which was deposited in her bank amount on 24-07-2014 but the amount of the policy of the complainant was fixed at Rs.1,64,000/- which was deposited in his bank account only on 02-08-2014. He further deposed that due to the slow process of the opposite party in releasing fund, the matured amount of his policy became less as the market slipping by several points and thus, there was a gross negligence on the part of opposite party in releasing fund towards his policy by taking 8 days unnecessarily and he received less amount than the amount due on the date of surrender for which the complainant has to suffer loss and such acts on the part of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service P.W.2. Monmi Phukan by her affidavit in evidence supports the evidence of P.W.1 in all material aspects.
The opposite party while filing their written version submitted that there was no negligence or delay on the part of the opposite party in closing the L.I.C. policy of the complainant and that there was no deficiency of service on their part while the complainant has filed this petition on false statement for wrongful gain for which he is not entitled to any relief. The opposite party neither cross examined the P.Ws. nor adduced any evidence in support of their written version. Hon’ble Apex Court in many judicial pronouncement specifically stated that mere filing of written statement is not sufficient unless supported by evidence. In the instant case the opposite party measurably failed to adduce any evidence in support of its written version nor they cross examined the P.Ws. to test their veracity. In view of above facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that the that the complainant has successfully established that the opposite party delayed in closing the L.I.C. policy of the complainant bearing No. 482592930 and releasing the fund towards the policy for which, he received less amount than the amount due on its date of maturity and thus, there was a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
In result both the points for discussion and decision are answered in affirmative and go in favour of the complainant.
O R D E R
8. In view of the above discussion, it is found that the petitioner has succeeded to prove that there was a deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
Accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioner U/S 12 of the Consumer protection is allowed on contest. Issue direction to the opposite party to pay the complainant the less amount of Rs.7,282/- for his policy No. 482592930 with interest @ 12 per annum from today till realization.
Inform all the parties concern.
Given under the hand and seal of this Commission, we signed and delivered this Judgment on this 13th Day of July 2022.
