BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

CACHAR :: SILCHAR

Con. Case No. 23 of 2018

            Shmti. Sibani Mazumder,

            Shanti Neer, House No.16, Netaji Lane

            National Highway, Silchar,  …………………………………………..   Complainants.

-V/S-

            1.         Divisional Manager, LICI, Divisional Office, Meherpur,

                        Kuarpar, Silchar- 788015

            2.         Branch Manager, LICI, Silchar Branch-II

                        N.S. Avenue, Silchar, Dist- Cachar, Assam-788005.…………………O.P.No.2.

Present: -                                Sri Bishnu Debnath,                                                 President,

District Consumer Forum,

                                                Cachar, Silchar.                                            

                                                            Sri Kamal Kumar Sarda,                             Member,

                                                            District Consumer Forum,

                                                            Cachar, Silchar.       

            Appeared: -                Mr. Joydeep Biswas, Advocate for the complainant.

                                                Mr. Sibdas Dutta, Advocate for the O.Ps.

                         Date of evidence                   13-02-2019, 19-03-2019

                         Date of written argument    01-07-2019, 09-09-2019

                         Date of oral argument          17-10-2019, 08-11-2019

                         Date of judgment                  18-11-2019

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

                                        Sri Bishnu Debnath

1.           This complaint case has been brought by Smti. Sibani Mazumder against the Divisional Manager and Branch Manager – II of Life Insurance Corporation of India (LICI), Silchar (referred as ‘OPs’) under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 for award of  Rs.2,34,240/- with interest both pendentelite and future. To get the reliefs as prayed for, the facts brought by the complainant in the complainant is stated briefly below:

2.        The complainant purchased a single premium Life Insurance Policy on 25-03-2010 from the OPs, vide Policy No.492634914. Name of the Policy was Wealth Plus(T-801). The amount of Premium was Rs.50,000/- and Sum Insured was Rs.65,000/-. The date of expiry of the policy term was on 25-03-2018 and date of expiry of extended life coverage was on 25-03-2020. At the time of purchasing of that policy a leaflet was provided to her. In that leaflet descriptions of year-wise growth of benefits have been shown. As per that growth description at the end of the 8^th year on survival the complainant would get Rs.2,04,240/-. But at the end of the 8^th year, the OPs showed the maturity amount of Rs.58,895/- instead of Rs.2,04,240/-. Hence, on being aggrieved the complainant brought this case.

3.        The OPs in their W/S stated inter-alia that the OPs did not provide any such leaflet to the complainant to say that she would entitle to get maturity value of Rs.2,04,420/- at the end of 8^th year of purchasing of the above policy. Of course, they stated further that the policy which purchased by the complainant was a Unit Linked one subject to market risk to be borne by the Policy-holder and OPs never circulated any such leaflet promising any guaranteed return on Unit Linked Insurance Policy plans. They stated that in case of ‘Wealth Plus” plan of insurance policy, the fund value as on date of maturity is based on the highest NAV(Net Asset Value) over the first 7(seven) years of the relevant insurance policy or NAV as applicable at the end of the term of the same. Accordingly, as per Unit Statement regarding the above Policy No.492634914, the complainant was entitled to receive Rs.58,895/-.

4.        To establish the claim the complainant submitted her deposition supporting an affidavit and exhibited not only insurance policy but also exhibited a leaflet bearing logo of LICI and a copy of letter addressed to the Branch Manager, LICI, Silchar Branch – II. The OPs also submitted deposition of Shri Joydeep Chakraborty supporting affidavit and exhibited Proposal Form of the complainant in respect of purchasing of the above policy. The OPs also exhibited Unit Statement of Policy No.492634914. After closing the evidence, both sides’ counsels submitted their written Argument.

5.        I have heard both sides’ counsels and perused the evidence on record including written arguments. It is admitted fact that the complainant was offered with maturity amount of Rs.58,895/- instead of Rs.2,04,240/-. The complainant is claiming the maturity amount of Rs.2,04,240/- as per leaflet, vide Ext.2. Who issued the Ext.2? The OPs stated that they did not assured the complainant to be entitled to receive any guaranteed amount as per Ext.2 leaflet. Rather stated that the complainant is entitled the NAV as per terms and conditions of the policy. Accordingly, as per Unit Statement, vide Ext.B the complainant is entitled to receive Rs.58,895/-.

6.        I have gone through the terms and condition of the Policy, vide Ext.1. No such guaranteed amount was shown in the insurance policy. Of course, in the Ext.2 leaflet it is mentioned that at the 8^th year of the policy, a presumptive return amount would be Rs.2,04,240/- for single premium of Rs.50,000/-. Here nothing found that OPs has given any guaranteed minimum return. In such situation the complainant is not entitled to receive the amount of Rs.2,04.240/- but as per Term No.3 of the policy the complainant is entitled to receive NAV on the end of the policy term or the highest NAV over first 7(seven) years of the policy, whichever is higher. The Ext,B Statement speaks that the complainant Fund Value as per Term No.2 is Rs.58,895/-. So the complainant is entitled to receive the above amount of Rs.58,895/- as maturity amount.

7.        But in this case it is evident from the evidence of the complainant that at the time of inviting to purchase the Wealth Plus Policy, the OPs served a leaflet showing expected or presumptive higher return. Why the said leaflet has been served? From hearing of both sides’ counsels and perusal of evidence on record, it is crystal clear that the OPs laid a trap to attract the prospective customer including the complainant to purchase the Wealth plus Policy with an illusion that her investment with life coverage would fetch higher return then investment on other area or scheme. From the evidence on record I do not find any clue that aforesaid growth of higher return mentioned in the Ext.2 based on any authentic and reliable data of rate of return. That is why, in my considered view, with the projection of baseless growth rate mentioned in the leaflet, the OPs in reality mis-leaded the complainant to purchase the Wealth Plus Policy from the OPs. Thus, it is concluded that the OPs sold the Wealth Plus Insurance Policy No.4926347914 to the complainant by playing unfair trade practice.

8.        Therefore, the OPs are not only liable to pay the maturity value of the Insurance Policy No.492634914 of Rs.58,895/-(Rupees Fifty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Five) only with interest from the date of falling due at the rate of 10% per annum but also liable to pay compensation for unfair trade practice of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only and cost of this proceeding of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand). Both the OPs are both jointly and severally liable to make payment of the awarded amount within 45 days from today. If fail to make payment within the stipulated time limit, the OPs are to pay further interest on the awarded amount at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of defaulter.

9.        With the above, the case is disposed of on contest. Supply free certified copy of the awarded to the parties of this litigation.