Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/213/2016

P.Malarvathani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Divisional Manager, Chennai Divisional P & GS Unit, Life Insurance Corporation of India - Opp.Party(s)

Shivakumar & Suresh

14 Jul 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 30.06.2016

Date of Reservation        : 28.06.2022

Date of Order                  : 14.07.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                 : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,         : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 213 /2016

THURSDAY, THE 14th DAY OF JULY 2022

Mrs. P. Malarvathani,

AP 308, 29th Street,

Kambar Colony,

Anna Nagar West,

Chennai – 600 040.                                                                                                                                                 ... Complainant                                

 

..Vs..

1.Divisional Manager,

  Chennai Division I P & GS Unit,

  Life Insurance Corporation of India,

  LIC Building 3rd Floor,

  Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

 

2.Chairman & Managing Director,

   Madras Fertilizers Limited,

   Post Bag No.2,

   Manali

   Chennai – 600 068.                                                                                                                                     ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant              : M/s. Shivakumar and Suresh

Counsel for the 1st Opposite Party       : M/s. S. Mahendran

Counsel for the 2nd Opposite Party      : M/s. K.M Raja Manoharan

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the  Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties, we delivered the following:

 

 

ORDER

Pronounced by the Member-I, Thiru. T.R.Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay the Group Terminal Bonus with remaining amount of return of capital along with interest in Annuity No.071M0201031852, Master policy No.GSCA/31092 from the date of death of Mr.R.Subramani and to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- for the mental agony and physical strain caused to the Complainant and to pay the cost of the complaint.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant is the wife of the late R.Subramani who was an ex employee of the 2nd Opposite Party vide Employee No.0100 who passed away on 12.03.2012. The 2nd Opposite Party had taken a Master Policy for its employees which is more fully known as Superannuation fund with the 1 Opposite Party The Complainant states that her husband Late. R.Subramani was also covered under the policy taken by the 2nd Opposite Party, uncovered superannuation fund Annuity No 071M0201031852 (Master Policy No.GSCA/31092) issued by the 1st Opposite Party. The said company introduced a Group Superannuation Scheme formulated by the 1st Opposite Party in the year 1974 covering all its employees with a benefit of annuity upon retirement for 15 years certain". As per this Scheme, in case the pensioner dies within 15 years, his nominee will get pension for the remainder of the 15 year period. Thereafter the 2nd Opposite Party had gone for revisal of the Group superannuation scheme on the advice of the 1 Opposite Party vide circular number G&S/PKM/127 Circular No.357 dated 9.7.1987. It is further stated that the 2nd Opposite Party had gone for a revisal as there was severe criticism of the previous scheme in existence and which opted them to go for the present scheme ie., payment of pension from "15 year certain" to life pension with Return of Capital and Group Pension Terminal Bonus on death". At the time of this change, the 1 Opposite Party had assured that in case of death of the retired employee of the company, there will be Return of Capital together with Terminal Bonus which is reproduced below in bold. "The LIC has recently come out with a new life annuity plan with benefits available under whole life assurance plan with group pension terminal bonus, which provides that on death of the member, the sum assured equal to the corpus is returned with the group pension terminal bonus to the beneficiary. Existing annuitants may also avail of the benefit of this plan which has been introduced by the LIC in order to give higher returns to beneficiaries of approved superannuation funds and to meet the criticism that annuity payment represented only periodical payment marginally higher than the interest on capital and on death the capital was lost."

        According to the above terms, if the employee dies during the service of the employment, the 1" Opposite Party will pay to the legal heirs on the death of employee. In view of these additional benefits as assured by the 1" Opposite Party, there was a reduction in the rate of pension from Rs 117.50 to Rs104,35 per every thousand of the accumulated contribution. The 1 Opposite Party's organization Life Insurance Corporation of India obtained necessary approval from Income Tax Department as required under Income Tax Act. The said circular approval was issued by Income Tax Department by their circular number 500 (F.No. 216/10/87-IT(A-II), dated 9-12-1987. The Complainant states that the 1" Opposite Party had assured and emphasised on the Terminal Bonus along with the return of capital on the death of the employee. The above scheme being more beneficial to its employees, the 2nd Opposite Party accepted for the scheme and executed a Deed of Variation, Doc No. 4276 as on 25.04.1988 to make an amendment in the scheme providing for Return of Capital and Group Pension Terminal Bonus. The change was effective from 25.4.1988 and the Opposite Party 2nd also issued a circular to all its employees informing them of the switch over giving illustrations of computation of pension under both the schemes and their salient features. As the nominee of the employee covered under the Scheme she is legally entitled for the above mentioned amounts. It is further stated that the Complainant had received only a sum of Rs. 3,48,177/- from the 1" Opposite Party vide letter dated 4.4.2013 ( Pension and Group Scheme Dept) towards claim settlement of her late husband against Rs 3,52,175/- shown as purchase price of Annuity and she has not received the payment of terminal bonus along with the remaining return of capital. The Complainant further states that the 1" Opposite Party had denied the assured Group pension Terminal Bonus as per the Deed of Variation in all cases of settlement, thereby rendering the claim only as a part- settlement and not a full and final settlement representing on behalf of her and also for other such aggrieved parties, the Secretary of the 2nd Opposite Party MFL Group Superannuation scheme addressed a letter to the Divisional Manager, P&G, LIC on 20.08.2014 requesting them to fully honour the provisions of the policy by also paying the Group Pension Terminal Bonus. Owing to the lack of response from the 1 Opposite Party, the Chairman and Managing director of the 2" Opposite Party company addressed a letter to the Chairman of LIC on 25.03.2015 seeking his intervention to settle the issue. After receiving the letter, the 1" Opposite Party had issued a letter dated 7.4.2015 stating that the Terminal Bonus would be payable only if declared by them and that no terminal bonus has been declared by them during the period." The change in the superannuation scheme was made in 1988, no bonus was declared during the said period and the 1 Opposite Party had informed that they had not declared bonus for the period 1988-2015 which is a period of about 27 long years which is illegal. as per the circular provided by the 1 Opposite Party. The quantum of bonus is left to be declared depending on the duration elapsed since the date of vesting to the date of death of the annuitant and also will depend on the profitability of the G&S division. However in the case, the 1st Opposite Party had not provided any reason for denying the Bonus they have been very vague about the entire issue. The Complainant further states that insurance being a contract of uberrima fides and governed by the doctrine of absolute good faith it is important that both the insurer and the insured disclose all facts in unambiguous terms, the 1st Opposite Party company should not attempt to wriggle out of their solemn commitment in the policy. Up to April 2015, the 1st Opposite Party had not advised the company i.e., MFL Superannuation Fund Trustees the quantum of bonus on annuity policies. Until April 7, 2015 it feigned ignorance about the provision of such a Bonus in the Master Policy as evidenced by the circumstances leading to the issue of a letter by the company to the 1 Opposite Party's Chairman. The bonus on MFL annuity policy was not at all taken up for consideration by the 1" Opposite Party either unwittingly overlooking the policy provision or they have deliberately committed a lapse by excluding it from consideration. In either case, the casual way with which they have erred and dealt with the issue has caused a grave injustice to the beneficiaries by denying her legitimate and integral constituent of Group Pension Terminal Bonus along with Return of Capital. The 15 Opposite Party's organization Life Insurance Corporation of India's website states unde Pension Option No.2" pension for life and Return of Capital with Group Pension Terminal Bonus" and the said website is valid even today. The 1" Opposite Party advertises Group Pension Terminal Bonus under this option while in practice, as in the present case, the 1" Opposite Party has taken an opposite stand of denying bonus which is illegal. The Complainant states that in the Pension option 2 listed in the website, there is no provision to pay Return of Capital alone, but ROC with Group Pension Terminal Bonus only. The only situation where Roc alone is payable is option 5 i.e. Joint Life Pension payable to the last survivor of the employee and spouse with return of capital on the death of the last survivor. MFL annuity scheme under the Master Policy referred to above does not cover Joint Life. the Jeevan Nidhi and New Jeevan Nidhi Policies have also clearly stated that in the event of the death of the annuitant, apart from Return of Capital, Terminal Bonus and Additional Terminal Bonus will be paid to the legal heirs or nominees of the annuitant. Both these policies are similar to the Group Insurance Policy taken by the Company and issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the organization of the 1 Opposite Party. The extract from the website of Life Insurance Corporation about these two policies are as under:

        JEEVAN NIDHI POLICYLIC'S JEEVAN NIDHI is a with profits Deferred Annuity (Pension) plan. On survival of the policyholder beyond term of the policy the accumulated amount (i.e. Sum Assured + Guaranteed Additions + Bonuses) is used to generate a pension (annuity) for the policyholder. The plan also provides a risk cover during the deferment period. The USP of the plan being the pension can commence at 40 years. The premiums paid are exempt under Section 80CCC of Income Tax Act.

        NEW JEEVAN NIDHI PLAN Benefit on Vesting: On vesting a sum equivalent to the basic Sum Assured together with accumulated assured additions, vested simple revisionary bonuses and Final Additional bonus, if there are any, will be provided to the policyholder. The choices will be there for the Life Assured for usage of the benefit amount of money are mentioned below.

  1. To buy an immediate annuity plan like Jeevan Akshay: The policyholder shall have an option to commute the total amount offered on vesting to the extent permitted under Income Tax Act. The whole amount offered on vesting or the balance amount after withdrawing the permitted amount, will likely be used to buy immediate annuity for the then existing annuity rates. Commutation shall just be permitted provided the balance amount is adequate to buy a lowest amount of annuity according to the provisions of Insurance Act, 1938. In the event the overall benefit amount is inadequate to buy the minimum amount of annuity, then your said amount will be given as a lump sum to the policy holder, OR
  2. To buy a new one time premium deferred retirement plan from Life Insurance Corporation of India. Under this solution the whole income offered on vesting shall be to buy a single premium deferred pension product provided the insurance holder meets the eligibility requirements for buying single premium deferred pension plan. The policyholder will need to intimate his/her plan to choose a specific choice available on the date of vesting a minimum of six months before the date of vesting.

Guaranteed Bonus: The policy offers for assured additions @ Rs.50/- per thousand Sum assured for each and every completed year, for the 1st five years. the 1" Opposite Party's organization has issued various Pension Policies on all of which or most of which they had declared bonus. They had also declared Additional Terminal Bonus at the time of maturity of these pension policies. While Life Insurance Corporation of India had declared terminal bonuses in addition to return of capital, why they have not declared the promised Group Pension Terminal Bonus in respect of the Master Policy issued by them to the 2nd Opposite Party's organization is a grave injustice to the beneficiaries of the Policy taken by the 2 Opposite Party. Not satisfied with the response from the 1" Opposite Party, the Complainant issued a legal notice to the 1" Opposite Party on 23/05/2016 through her counsel. In response, the 1st Opposite Party issued a letter dated June 1, 2016 to the Complainant with a copy to her counsels. The letter received from the 1" Opposite Party is enclosed as Attachment 1 to this complaint. In para six of their letter the 1 Opposite Party stated as under.

"Group Pension Terminal Bonus (GPTB) was not payable along with this ROC claim as you demanded since LIC had not declared any GPTB during this period i.e. from the date of vesting to the date of death of the deceased Mr. R Subramani." 

The 1" Opposite Party had not declared bonus for so many years and they had not cared to inform the 2nd Opposite Party that it had not declared bonus for the Master Policy taken by them. The 1st Opposite Party had misled the 2nd Opposite Party and through them all the current and ex employees of the 2nd Opposite Party about the Return of Capital along with GPTB. This misleading Information led 2 Opposite Party to a fats belief about the benefits under the revised and new superannuation policy. Apart from the 2 Opposite Party, the 1 Opposite Party would have issued similar polices to many other organizations with a proviso of payment of Return of Capital together with Terminal Bonus in the event of death of the annuitant. The 1" Opposite Party's Organization had also misled the Income Tax Department about the benefits under the new superannuation policy and made them issue their approval for the new superannuation scheme. the Income Tax Department had issued the approval for the revised scheme as the previous scheme was criticized for it was not favourable to the pensioners. But the 1" Opposite Party had met only half way by granting return of capital but not the GPTB and they had misled the IT department also for grant of the approval for the revised scheme. Therefore the mala fide action of the 1st Opposite Party organization in denying Group Pension Terminal Bonus has the effect of subverting the sanctity of approval of the Income Tax Department, thereby vitiating the entire scheme. The Complainant submits that this Hon'ble Forum may direct the concerned authorities to consider rescinding the approval as one party has unilaterally violated the approval prejudicing the vital interests of the other party and its beneficiaries.  the misleading information about the benefits of the revised policy is an absolute deficiency in service of a leading Public Sector Organization like Life Insurance Corporation of India and LIC reneging from its covenanted commitment of paying Group Pension Terminal Bonus along with RoC constitutes a serious breach of trust on the part of the 1 Opposite Party. This stoic silence from the 1" Opposite Party or LIC means that they have violated the doctrine of utmost good faith which is the cardinal and underlying principle of any insurance contract. These are nothing but clear deficiency in service on the part of 1" Opposite Party. The Complainant further states that because of the poor service and denying her legitimate and integral constituent of Group Pension Terminal Bonus along with Return of Capital had created unbearable mental agony caused to her from running pillar to post for no fault on her part and the act of the 1" Opposite Party clearly shows there is deficiency of service on their part. The Complainant further states that in view of the mental agony she went through and the deficiency in service caused by the 1" Opposite Party, our client is also entitled to claim compensation against the 1st Opposite Party apart from the Group Pension Terminal bonus for the period 1.02.2003 to 12.03.2012.    

        From the above it is evident that the actions of the 1st Opposite Party are totally illegal, negligent and constitute gross deficiency of service. Hence the present complaint. The 1st Opposite Party’s company is well within the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum. Hence the Complaint.

Written Version filed by the Opposite Parties in Brief are as follows:-

The first Opposite Party has introduced the new scheme with Return of Capital along with a Group Pension Terminal Bonus (GPTB) depending on duration elapsed since the date of vesting to the date of death, if any, declared by LIC of India and the rate of GPTB will depend on profitability of that class of business. The Trustees of the MFL decided to switch over to new scheme and executed deed of variations accordingly. The first Opposite Party submits that in respect of para-2 of the complaint the deceased annuitant Mr R Subramani had retired from the services of 2 Opposite Party and had been receiving annuity under the new scheme with Annuity No. 071M0201031852 and vesting date 01/02/2003 till his death. On receipt of all requirements from the Trustee Rs.348177/-, after recovery of Rs.3998 which was paid after the date of death of the annuitant for two dues @ Rs.1999/ from ROC Amount Rs.352175/- had been settled. Group Pension Terminal Bonus was not payable along with this ROC Death claim as demanded since LIC had not declared any GPTB during this period i.e. from the date of vesting to the date of death of the deceased Mr R Subramani. The second Opposite Party MEL had a Superannuation Scheme with us covering all their employees. Under which the members of the scheme were drawing Life Annuity with 15 Years Certain and annuity is payable till the expiry of certain period or death of the annuitant whichever is later. The existing Annuitants who were members of the approved Superannuation Scheme were permitted to exercise an option to convert to the new plan subject to certain conditions. Annuities payable to the members would be reduced accordingly on exercise of option. Members/Annuitants of the existing scheme of MFL opted for switching over to new scheme. A deed of variation incorporating the suitable amendments in accordance with the conditions of the new scheme had been executed by the Trustees of the 2nd Opposite Party MFL. Superannuation Scheme. Hence the Trustees of the Scheme are well aware of the provisions of the scheme. The quantum of annuity amount varies according to the option exercised by the annuitant. The Trustees of the MFL Superannuation Scheme are aware about the provisions of the scheme that the declaration of Group Terminal Bonus will depend on profitability of that class of business and that LIC has not so far declared any bonus for the same. The 1" Opposite Party submits that the Jeevan Nidhi and New Jeevan Nidhi are individual Pension Policies and they cannot be compared with Group Pension Policies at any time. It is pertinent to state that the rate of GPTB will depend only on profitability of that class of business. The Group Superannuation Master Policy issued to MFL is a separate master policy with unique conditions. There is no mala fide action or unilateral violation on the part of the 1" Opposite Party LIC of India as MFI executed a deed of variation incorporating the suitable amendments in accordance with the rules of new scheme i.e. "In the event of death of the annuitant the nominee will get the Return of Capital along with a Group Pension Terminal Bonus (GPTB) depending on duration elapsed since the date of vesting to the date of death, if any, declared by LIC." Further the rate of GPTB will depend on profitability of that class of business". The 1" Opposite Party, the LIC of India has not given any misleading information about the benefits of the scheme and there is no deficiency of service. The 1 Opposite Party submits that on receipt of all requirements from the Trustee an amount of Rs.348177/- had been settled towards ROC Death Claim after recovery of Rs.3,998 for two dues @Rs.1999/-paid after the date of death of the annuitant from ROC Amount Rs.352175/-. The Group Pension Terminal Bonus was not payable along with this ROC Death claim since LIC had not declared any GPTB during this period i.e from the date of vesting 01/02/2003 to the date of death of the deceased annuitant Mr. R. Subramani. Settlement of ROC death claim in respect of Annuity No. 071M0201031852 of the deceased annuitant Mr R Subramani had been done by LIC within permissible time limit on receipt of all claim requirements from the Trustee of the scheme. The 1" Opposite Party LIC of India has not given any misleading information about the benefits of the revised scheme to the trustee of the scheme or has not committed any serious breach of trust. is no any deficiency of service on the part of the 1" Opposite Party, the LIC of India end as the settlement of ROC Death Claim had been done within permissible time limit on receipt of all claim requirements from the Trustee of the scheme. Group Pension Terminal Bonus was not payable since LIC had not declared any GPTB during this period. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

2.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-22 were marked. The Opposite Parties submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the 2nd Opposite Party, documents Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-2 were marked. On the side of 1st Opposite Party, documents Ex.B-3 to Ex.B-6 were marked.

  

Points for Consideration :-

1.     Whether the 1st Opposite Party committed deficiency of service?

2.     Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the Complaint and for any other relief/s?

Point No.1 :

It is not in dispute that the Complainant’s husband being the employee of the 2nd Opposite Party had availed a policy of the 1st Opposite Party through the 2nd Opposite Party, known as Superannuation Fund Annuity bearing No. 071M0201031852 under the Master Policy No.GSCA/31092 taken by the 2nd Opposite Party. The 2nd Opposite Party had introduced a Group Superannuation Scheme formulated by the 1st Opposite Party in the year 1974 covering all its employees with a benefit of annuity upon retirement for “15 years certain”, under which scheme if the pensioner dies, the nominee will get pension for remaining 15 years.

It is dispute that the Complainant is entitled for life pension with Return of Capital and Group Pension Terminal Bonus on death, as per the revised clause of the Group Superannuation Scheme on the advice of the 1st Opposite Party vide Circular No.G&S/PKM/127, Circular No.357 dated 09.07.1987 and the 2nd Opposite Party had gone for revisal and as the present scheme was beneficial, the same was opted.

The Contention of the Complainant is that the 2nd Opposite Party as per the above said Circular issued by the 2nd Opposite Party had accepted for the revised scheme and had executed a Deed of variation registered as Document No.4276 as on 25.04.1988 to make an amendment in the Scheme providing Return of Capital and Group Terminal Bonus and since then the change was effected and the 2nd Opposite Party had issued a circular to all its employees informing them to switch over to the present scheme which would benefit the employees. Hence as the nominee of her husband, Late Mr.R.Subramani, the Complainant is entitled for life pension with Return of Capital and Group Pension Terminal Bonus, but she has been paid only the annuity amount of Rs.3,48,177/- as against Rs.3,52,175/-, from the 1st Opposite Party, as per Ex.A-5 a letter sent by the 1st Opposite Party and the terminal bonus along with return of capital was not paid and denied by the 1st Opposite Party as agreed upon under the revised scheme and as per Deed of Variation. Thereafter the 2nd Opposite Party in the interest of their employees had sent a letter dated 20.08.2014, as found in Ex.A-8, to the 1st Opposite Party to honour their commitment of paying Group pension Terminal Bonus as their revised scheme and as per the Deed of Variation, which was not responded, hence the 2nd Opposite Party had issued a letter dated 25.03.2015 to the Chairman of the 1st Opposite Party, as found in Ex.A-9, seeking his intervention to settle the issue, on receipt the 1st Opposite Party had sent a Letter dated 07.04.2015 as found in Ex.A-10, stating only if it is declared by the 1st Opposite Party the Group Terminal Bonus shall be paid and further informed that during the said period no terminal bonus has been declared. The Complainant further contended that the change in Superannuation Scheme was effected in the year 1988, the denial of bonus as not declared after 27 years, is illegal  further insurance being a Contract of uberrima fides and governed by doctrine of absolute good faith it is important that both insurer and the insured disclose all the facts in unambiguous terms. As such the 1st Opposite Party had not informed the 2nd Opposite Party about the declaration on terminal bonus along with return of capital, which is a grave injustice to the beneficiaries including the Complainant. The Complainant further contended that the 1st Opposite Party website under Pension Option No.2 “pension for life and Return of Capital with Group Pension Terminal Bonus” is valid till now and hence the denial made to the Complainant is illegal. As the Group Pension Terminal Bonus was not declared to the Complainant as per the Master Policy issued by the 1st Opposite Party to the 2nd Opposite Party, she had sent a legal notice dated 23.05.2016 to the 1st Opposite Party marked as Ex.A-15, for which a reply notice dated 01.06.2016 was sent by the 1st Opposite Party, as found in Ex.A-16, it is stated that no declaration of GPTB was made during this period, i.e, from the date of vesting to the date of death of deceased Mr.R.Subramani. Further contended that the 1st Opposite Party had not declared bonus and had not cared to inform the 2nd Opposite Party about the non declaration of bonus for the Master policy taken by the 2nd Opposite and thereby misled the 2nd Opposite Party and through them all its employees and the said misleading information about the revised policy is an absolute deficiency of service and thereby caused mental agony to the Complainant.

The 1st Opposite Party contended that they admit the introduction of a new superannuation scheme on 09.07.1987 but the same is subject to declaration by them, and also admits the switch over of the Scheme made by the 2nd Opposite Party and the execution of Deed of Variation, as the Group Pension Terminal Bonus has not been declared during the period, i.e, from the date of vesting to the date of death of the deceased Mr.R.Subramani, they could not pay the same. Further contended that the Group Pension policy could not be compared with other policies and the Group Pension Terminal Bonus will depend only on profitability of that class of business, further it has been clearly mentioned in the revised rule that On death of the member, an amount equal to the member’s accumulation/cash option/purchases applied for purchase of pension will be payable along with any group pension terminal bonus that may be declared by the Corporation, as found in Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2, hence they have not given any misleading information about the benefits of the revised scheme to the 2nd Opposite Party or had not committed any breach of trust and there is no deficiency on their part.

On careful reading of the Complaint, documents filed in support of the Complaint and the Written Versions filed by the Opposite Parties, it is clear from Ex.A-1 being the Circular issued by the 1st Opposite Party and Ex-2, the Deed of Variation executed by the 2nd Opposite Party on the revised Rules, that the Group Pension Terminal Bonus is absolutely subjected to the declaration to be made by the 1st Opposite Party. The 2nd Opposite Party who had a Master Policy with the 1st Opposite Party and who had executed a Deed of Variation on the Circular issued by the 1st Opposite Party by amending the Rules as per the revision, is well aware of that the Group Pension Terminal Bonus would be considered or paid only on the declaration that may be made by the 1st Opposite Party and hence it is duty cast upon the 2nd Opposite Party to confirm whether the 1st Opposite Party had declared the Group Pension Terminal Bonus to be paid to their employees, even we find from the communications sent by the 2nd Opposite Party to the 1st Opposite Party on 09.09.2015 marked as Ex.A-11, the claims of all the employees were settled only with Return of Capital, though the 2nd Opposite Party had taken its efforts to resolve the issue, not found to taken seriously in the interest of its employees, as in their written version it is mentioned that “ as and when any claim is received, they would forward the same to the 1st Opposite Party. On receipt of the claim the 1st Opposite Party would process the Discharge Voucher and forward the same to the 2nd Opposite Party for authorizing the payment to the nominee legal heir of the deceased annuitant”. Further as per Ex.A-3 being the Circular on benefits under MFL Superannuation Scheme provided by the 2nd Opposite Party to its employees, the words found in the revised rule i.e, “that may be declared by the Corporation or LIC, was wrongly mentioned as bonus declared”.So it is clear that the 2nd Opposite Party is aware of the claims of its retired and deceased employees’ nominees by effecting return of capital only and the fact of the Group Pension Terminal Bonus has not been declared by the 1st Opposite Party.

On the above discussions made and in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, this commission holds that the 1st Opposite Party has not given any misleading information about the benefits of the revised scheme as it is clearly mentioned in Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 that the Group Pension Terminal Bonus that may be declared will be payable by the 1st Opposite Party. Hence this Commission is of the considered view that the 1st Opposite Party had not committed any deficiency of service.

Point No.2 :-

As discussed and decided point no.1 as against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief claimed in the Complaint and/or for any other relief/s.

In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

 

 

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on  14th day of July 2022.  

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                                                      T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                                                B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                                                                     MEMBER I                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1

09/07/1987

Letter from the 1 Opposite Party for introduction of Annuity Plan along with Benefits under the scheme

Ex.A2

25/04/1988

Deed of Variation executed by the 2 Opposite Party

Ex.A3

20/03/1989

Benefits Under MFL Superannuation Circular issued by the 2nd Opposite Party

 

Ex.A4

19/03/2000

Scheme advertised by the 1 Opposite Party superannuation Policy

Ex.A5

04/04/2013

Letter sent by the 1st Opposite Party along with cheque

Ex.A6

23/09/2013

Letter from the Complainant to the Opposite parties

 

Ex.A7

21/07/2014

Letter from Group of Ex Mflers to the 2nd  Opposite Party

Ex.A8

20/08/2014

Letter from the 2nd Opposite Party to the 1st  Opposite

Ex.A9

25/03/2015

Letter from Chariman of the 2 Opposite Party to the 1st Opposite Party

Ex.A10

07/04/2015

Letter from the 1st Opposite Party to the 2nd  Opposite Party

 

Ex.A11

09/09/2015

Representation from A Group of Ex – Employees of  MFL to the Grievance Redressal Officer, LIC

 

Ex.A12

21/01/2016

Letter from the 2nd Opposite Party to the Group of Ex MFL Lers

Ex.A13

02/03/2016

Letter from A Group of Ex-MFLers to the Ombudsman of IRDA

Ex.A14

 09/03/2016

Letter from the Office of the Insurance Ombudsman

 

Ex.A15

23/05/2016

Legal Notice sent by the Complainant through her counsel

Ex.A16

01/06/2016

Reply received from the 1st Opposite Party

Ex.A17

     -

Website content of the pension policy of the Opposite Party

 

Ex.A18

      -

Tabulation of History of LIC Bonus Rates

Ex.A19

07/11/2016

LIC ad on diamond jubilee bonus-paper clipping

Ex.A20

06/11/2005

LIC-declaration of golden jubilee bonus

Ex.A21

01/02/2033

Annuity Ledger Sheet

Ex.A22

      -

Website content of the pension policy of the 1st Opposite Party

 

List of documents filed on the side of the 2nd Opposite Party:-

 

Ex.B1

 

Copy of Letter

Ex.B2

 

Copy of Letter

 

List of documents filed on the side of the 1st Opposite Party:-

 

Ex.B3

09.07.1987

Circular issued by the LIC of India,

Central Office, Mumbai

Ex.B4

25.04.1988

Deed of Variation

Ex.B5

20.07.1988

 

Letter issued by the LIC of India to the Second Opposite Party.

Ex.B6

21.12.1988

Consent letter by the Managing Trustee of Second Opposite Party

 

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                                                       T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                                             B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                                                                    MEMBER I                                                                 PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.