BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 347/2003<br /> Dated : 28.04.2008<br /> Complainant :<br /> <br /> P. Raghavan Pillai, K.P 11/239, GSS NRA-15, 'Mynakom', NCC Road, Ambalamukku, Thiruvananthapuram – 5.<br /> <br /> (By adv. Smt. Haripriya.C.R)<br /> <br /> Opposite parties :<br /> <br /> 1.Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Pattom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> (By adv. Sri.S. Narayana Iyer)<br /> <br /> 2.Bernard Ross, LIC Agent, Rose Nivas, OLG Nagar, Vallakkadavu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 13.12.2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 02.04.2008, the Forum on 28.04.2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> This complaint is filed for directing 2nd opposite party to pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 148000/- towards compensation. Further relief sought for is for awarding a compensation of Rs. 100000/- from the 1st opposite party and for awarding cost of Rs. 3000/-. It is stated in the complaint as follows : Complainant under the influence of 2nd opposite party took Jeevan Dhara Policy of the 1st opposite party. Policy No. is 781708894. Date of policy is 20.02.1998, table 14-13(13) Proposal No. is 6390, date of proposal is 19.02.1998. Complainant has been remitting the premium amount of Rs. 858/- per month without any default. 2nd opposite party convinced the complainant that as per Jeevan Dhara Policy complainant would get Rs. 2000/- per month as pension on completion of 60 years of age. On 10th February 2003 complainant approached one of the official of the 1st opposite party and enquired whether opposite party had started issuing pension as per Jeevan Dhara Policy. It was at that time complainant realised that opposite party had deceived the complainant. Thereafter the complainant contacted the 2nd opposite party and it was at that time 2nd opposite party informed the complainant that the above said policy was withdrawn by the 1st opposite party, instead complainant was included in a most beneficial policy. Being realised that complainant was trapped by the 2nd opposite party complainant sent a complaint to the 1st opposite party. 1st opposite party accepted the said complaint. But no further action was taken by the 1st opposite party. Hence complaint is filed for cancellation of LIC agency of the 2nd opposite party and for realisation of Rs.148000/- from the 2nd opposite party and for compensation of Rs. 100000/- and for costs of Rs. 3000/-. <br /> <br /> The 1st opposite party filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. There was no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the 1st opposite party. The complaint is barred by the principles of estoppel acquiescence and waiver. Complaint hopelessly barred by limitation. LIC of India had received a proposal for insurance dated 17.02.1998. The plan of insurance opted in the said proposal was 14(Endowment Assurance Plan with profits) and the term of insurance was 13 years. In consideration of the said proposal for insurance dated 17.02.1998 and the medical report, a policy of insurance bearing No. 781708894 for the sum assured of Rs. 100000/- under plain 14 for a term of 13 years was issued to the complainant. The consideration for the contract of insurance under the policy is Rs. 858/- which the complainant had been remitting from 20.02.1998 till 20.08.2003, without any demur or protest regarding the terms and conditions of the policy which are printed on the policy itself. After a lapse of more than 5 years the complainant has approached this Hon'ble Forum with false pleas that he had taken a policy under the Jeevan Dhara plan. Complainant had declared in the proposal for insurance that his occupation was business and complainant had opted for a policy under plan 14-13 for Rs. 100000/- and the LIC of India had issued a policy of his choice which he had accepted and continued the payment of premium for more than 5 years. If he had wanted a policy under plan Jeevan Dhara he could have very well returned the said policy document immediately on its receipt. The Jeevan Dhara plan of assurance was withdrawn by LIC in January 2000. On the contrary complainant had been remitting the premium under the said policy without any protest, which amounts to acceptance and admission of the terms and conditions of the policy 781708894 and now complainant cannot turn round and claim that the policy was not of his choice. He could have rejected the same immediately on its receipt. The contention that he had been cheated etc. are false and only invented for the purpose of this litigation. LIC of India is not liable for the actions of the agent if any had happened against LIC of India since while filling up the proposal for insurance and submitting the same before the LIC of India the agent acts as an agent of the proponent for whose benefit the insurance is to be obtained. No cause of action had happened for such a complaint as alleged. The policy was issued in the year 1998 in consideration of the proposal submitted by the complainant. He had received the policy document and he had enough time to question the same. Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint as against the 1st opposite party.<br /> <br /> The 2nd opposite party filed version contending that complainant and 2nd opposite party were colleagues at Thiruvananthapuram City Corporation and both were retired from the service. After the retirement the complainant worked as Peerless Agent for a short period and engaged in egg business, and at that time 2nd opposite party met the complainant near Vanchi Poor Fund road in an afternoon and wished him. Meanwhile the complainant explained his circumstances and 1st opposite party suggested to have a policy with LIC. Complainant is fully aware of the terms and conditions of the policy as he was also an agent with Peerless. After medical examination, 3 month's policy instalment and duly filled application for T 14 endowment policy was proposed at LIC office. Thereafter one day the complainant came to the residence of the 2nd opposite party and requested him to join with the marketing chain of 'Conybio' a health care product. 2nd opposite party is having 70 years old and rejected the request of the complainant. This is only the reason for filing this false complaint against this opposite party. The first prayer in the complaint itself proves the vengeance and hatred of the complainant towards this opposite party. This opposite party never suggested Jeevan Dhara Policy to the complainant. There is nothing unfair trade practice or deficiency in service in this. The petition is not maintainable and complainant is not entitled to obtain any relief from this forum. <br /> <br /> The points that would arise for consideration are:-<br /> (i)Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?<br /> (ii)Whether the complaint is barred by principles of estoppel, acquiescence and waiver?<br /> (iii)Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?<br /> (iv)Reliefs and costs?<br /> <br /> On the part of the complainant, complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts. P1 to P4 were marked. On the part of opposite parties, K. Sundaresan, Manager, Legal and HPF Department of LIC of India filed affidavit on behalf of the 1st opposite party and Exts. D1 to D3 were marked. PW1 was cross-examined by 1st and 2nd opposite parties. <br /> <br /> Points (i) to (iv):- The case of the complainant is that under the influence and compulsion of the 2nd opposite party complainant took a Jeevandhara Policy of the 1st opposite party. The policy No. is 781708894. The policy date is 20.02.1998. Table 14-13(13) Proposal No. is 6390. Proposal date is 19.02.1998. Complainant has been remitting the premium amount of Rs. 858/- per month without any default. Ext. P2 is the policy issued by the 1st opposite party. Ext. P2 policy reveals that the policy is under endowment assurance plan with profit and with accident benefit for a term of 13 years. The sum assured is Rs. 100000/-. The monthly amount of premium is Rs. 858/-. The date of commencement is 20.02.1998. The last date of payment is 20.01.2011. The date of maturity is 20.02.2011. The sum assured with vested bonus is payable only on the date of maturity or on earlier death of the life assured. The said policy Ext. P2 is not Jeevandhara policy, but an endowment assurance policy and the same is seen issued as per the request of the complainant under the proposal for insurance dated 17.02.1998. Ext. D2 and P2 are one and the same. Ext. D1 is the proposal for insurance. As per Ext. D1 proposal No. is 6390, proposal date is 17.02.1998. During cross examination complainant deposed that he is a graduate in Economics and was working as UDC in Thiruvananthapuram City Corporation and retired from service on 30.04.1996. Complainant admitted that he had signed on the proposal form (Ext. D1) and medical test was conducted. PW1 further admitted that as per proposal he had received policy and original of P2 policy is with him. PW1 also admitted that Ext. P2 policy is one of endowment assurance policy and he has been remitting the premium amount without any default. PW1 also admitted that he would know Jeevandhara policy, but he did not know whether pension has been issued on completion of 60 years age. He further deposed that one of his friends, who is a responsible officer of LIC, informed him that the Jewevandhara policy was withdrawn by the 1st opposite party. But the said friend's or officer's name was not known to PW1. He would recollect the concerned name may be Varghese who is personally known to the PW1 for the last 3 years. PW1 admitted that after his retirement he was working as a Peerless agent for two months thereafter for two months he was doing egg business and now he is running a shop. The deposition of PW1 totally contradicting the affidavit filed by PW1. This would cast cloud over the veracity of the statement filed by PW1 in his affidavit. DW1 admitted that Ext. P2/D2 policy was issued on the basis of Ext. D1 proposal duly signed by the complainant. DW1 further deposed that complainant never demanded Jeevandhara policy and for Jeevandhara policy the maximum age limit is 55 years. At the time of taking Ext. P2 policy complainant's age was 57 years. On cross examination DW1 deposed that for endowment assurance policy age limit would be 70 years subject to standard age proof and complainant was medically fit at his age of 57. Ext. D1 proposal was verified and signed by the complainant. On going through the contentions in the complaint, proof affidavit of PW1, Exts. P1 to P4, deposition of PW1 on cross examination and version of opposite parties 1 and 2 and evidence of DW1 and Exts. D1 to D3 it is crystal clear that complainant had received Ext. P2 policy after understanding the terms and conditions of the said policy. The said policy was issued in the year 1998. Complainant has approached this forum after a lapse of 5 years from the date of Ext. P2 policy with a complaint contending that Ext. P2 policy is not of his choice. It is pertinent to note that Ext. P2 policy was issued to the complainant in the year 1998 in consideration of Ext.P1 proposal dated 17.02.1998. This complaint is filed in the year 2003. If he had wanted the policy under Jeevandhara he could have very well returned the Ext. P2 policy immediately on its receipt. Complainant is a literate. He had verified the proposal and answer to the questions were given after reading the questions carefully. As per Sec. 24(a) of Consumer Protection Act complaint shall be filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. In the instant case Ext. P2 policy was issued to the complainant in the year 1998. Normally he ought to have challenged the said policy within two years from the date of issuance. Complainant had accepted the said policy and continued payment of premium all through the next more than 5 years. This complaint was filed on 17th July 2003, after 5 years from the date of issuance of the policy. The complaint is time barred and not maintainable. Hence complaint is dismissed. Both parties would suffer and bear their costs. <br /> <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 28th April, 2008.<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> O.P.No. 347/2003<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> PW1 – Raghavan Pillai<br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> P1 - True copy of Renewal Premium receipt dated 05.06.2003 with Tr. No. 18106 of Policy No. 781708894 dtd. 20.02.1998.<br /> <br /> P2 - True copy of Policy No. 781708894 dtd. 20.02.1998.<br /> <br /> P3 - True copy of letter to the opposite party dated 15.02.2003.<br /> <br /> P4 - True copy of letter dated 03.03.2003 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.<br /> <br /> P5 - True copy of pension payment order of the complainant.<br /> <br /> P6 - Original postal receipt dated 14.09.2004 – RL-AD 9459.<br /> <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :<br /> <br /> DW1 - K. Sundaresan<br /> <br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> D1 - True copy of the proposal for insurance dated 17.02.1998.<br /> <br /> D2 - Office copy of Policy No. 781708894 dtd. 20.02.1998.<br /> <br /> D3 - True copy of proposal review slip of No. 6390.<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br />