Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
(3) Anil Kumar Singh
Member
Date of Order : 19.11.2018
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 40,000/- as litigation for physical harassment and mental agony besides Rs. 10,000/- as cost of corresponding and visiting office several times for the payment of the policies along with 12% interest.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he has taken two life insurance policies from LIC of India, Biharsharif Branch (opposite party no. 3) bearing policy no. 30018910 and 30001472 of the year 1966. Thereafter on his request the aforesaid policy were transferred to Patna Branch no. I from Biharsharif Branch in 1972 vide letter no. BO/PHS/transfer/BBL dated 14.06.1972.
It is further stated that both policies acquired paid up value for payment of the paid of value to the complainant. It is further stated that for paying the amount the complainant has approached several times to the authorities and written several letters to the competent authority of LIC of India. He has also received some information Right to Information Act but his grievance has not been fulfilled.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 to 3 written statement has been filed stating therein that policies were taken in the year 1966 as per the complaint petition and first unpaid premium of both the policies were June 68 and December 68 but both the policies lapsed before obtaining the paid up value.
In Para – 8 of the written statement the following facts have been asserted, “that about more than 49 years is going to be passed and LIC has very difficult to keep records hence the complainant had been requested the policy holder to produce the original policy bonds to help the opposite party for making payment of paid up value but the complainant refused to give original policy bonds because the same has been lost during his transfer from Biharsharif to Patna.”
It has been further stated by opposite parties that in order to get paid up value on these policies the onus lies on the policy holder to produce original policy bond before the corporation.
It has been stated that this case must be dismissed on the point of limitation as the matter is of the year 1968 and the complainant has came this Hon’ble Court after 49 years without any proper explanation.
On behalf of complainant a rejoinder has been filed, In Para – 3 of the aforesaid rejoinder the following facts have been asserted, “the insurance company after making inquiry and verification accepted the said two proposal forms and accordingly issued policy number 30018910 and 30001472. The complainant never violated the terms and conditions of the said policies and regular paid the premiums and the same has been accepted by the insurance company. The insurance company never communicated to the complainant that the said policies are lapsed due to non – payment of the premiums. It is mandatory upon the insurance company to serve notice or to give prior information to the policy holder before terminating or declaring the policies as a lapsed. The said obligations are never discharged by the opposite parties and they never communicated to the complainant that said policies are lapsed. On the request both policies had been transferred to Patna Branch no. 1. The opposite parties have not discharged their obligation and never communicated to the complainant that the said policies are lapsed. It is also mandatory obligation upon the opposite parties to maintain the register regarding the policies and also the payment of the premium but the register is not properly maintained by the opposite parties and blaming upon the complainant that he is not cooperating with the opposite parties, the opposite parties have attach guidelines in which it is stated that policies ledger sheets and policy transfer register are to be preserved permanently. Here the opposite parties accepted and admitted that the said policies were transferred. Even then the record has not been preserved and kept properly. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant continuously paid the premium under the both policies and never violated the terms and conditions of the policies. Now the complainant is titled to get the benefit of the said policies but the same has not been provided to the complainant on one pretext or the other.”
It has been also submitted in rejoinder that decision of the Center Information Commission is not binding upon the Hon’ble Forum because the subject matter as well as relief of this complaint is totally different sought in this petition filed under the Right to Information.
The learned counsel for the opposite parties has mainly stressed that this case be dismissed on the point of limitation.
After hearing both sides and perusing the complaint, written statement as well as rejoinder of the parties. We are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to be informed about the termination of his policy and there is no evidence on the record to show that opposite parties have even tried to inform the complainant about the termination of his policy.
However, we are couscous of the fact that this matter relates to 1968 but it is also a fact that the complainant is now about 78 years of age.
The opposite parties are instrumentality of the state hence they are bound to act in the interest of welfare of the public.
For the reason stated above we direct the complainant to file a representation with all relevant papers to opposite parties within the period of two month from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order. If such representation is filed by the complainant then the opposite parties are directed to locate the Duplicate copy of the bond with other details of the policy from their record and extend the benefit as per terms of the policy and also in accordance with the law within the period of three month from the date of filing of the representation of the complainant.
With the aforementioned direction this complaint stands disposed off.
Member Member(F) President
