SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT.

            Complaint seeking an order  to disburse the Insurance amount as per the policy, compensation costs etc.

          The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:

          The complainant is the policy holder of the 2^nd opp.party with policy No.781064665.  Due to certain financial difficulties, the complainant  before the maturity of the policy with a view to surrender the same  she made a request  to the first opp.party on 3.2.2008 and the 1^st opp.party directed to  submit forms along with the original policy bond.   But unfortunately she found that her original policy bond is missing.  At the time when  the complainant made her option the surrender value would come to  oRs.22,920/-.  But in the form 5074 Do issued by the first opp.party it is shown that Rs.19,073/- has been deducted from the total surrender value by way of a loan Rs.10,440/- and of Rs.8,633/- as its interest and the complainant is  eligible to get only the balance amount of Rs.3,847/-  The complainant never availed any loan.  Now the opp.party  is trying to evade from the payment of policy array by alleging false reasons.     She is legally entitled to get the policy amount.  The conduct of the opp.party  amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part .  Hence the complaint.

The opp.parties filed version contending as follows:  The complainant was issued with policy No.781064665 by the 2^nd opp.party.  On 12.12.2001 the complainant availed a loan of Rs.10,440/- from the 2^nd opp.party by assigning the original policy document to LIC of India.  The allegation that the original policy bond was  missed from her is not correct.  But it was assigned by her with LIC for availing the said loan.  The said policy was lapsed since 28.10.2002, as the premium is not paid.  The surrender value of the policy generated as on 4.2.2008 was Rs.22,920/-.  The net surrender value payable  to the life assured is Rs.3,847/-.  The allegation in para 4 of the complaint is false.   The opp.party is  a public sector under taking established under the Life Insurance Corporation Act of 1956.  There is no question of evading from the responsibility cast on the Corporation.   The original policy was assigned with LIC for availing loan by the complainant.   There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties.  Hence the opp.parties prays to dismiss the complaint with their costs..

Points that would arise for consideration are:

1.Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties

2. Reliefs and costs.

For the complainant PW.1 is examined.   Ext. P1 to P4 are marked

For the opp.parties DW.1 to DW.3 are examined  Ext. D1 to D3 are marked

POINTS:

          The complainant has taken Ext. D1 LIC policy from the 2^nd opp.party and the same lapsed before maturity due to non payment of premium are not disputed.   The complaints case is that when she intended to surrender the policy she was informed that she is eligible to get Rs.3847/- only as against Rs.22,920/- alleging that she has availed a loan of Rs.10,440/- against the policy.   According to the complainant she has not availed any loan as alleged.

          According to the opp.parties the complainant filed Ext. D2 loan application surrendering D! policy and assigning the same in favour of the opp.parties and executed Ext. D3 assignment of policy and accordingly a loan of Rs.10,440/- was sanctioned to her and the amount was disbursed to her evidenced by Ext. X1,  It is their further case that the complainant was identified by DW.2 the  Insurance Agent through whom she had taken the policy.

          The contention of the complainant is that she has not filed Ext.D2 loan application or surrendered the policy and that the signature in Exts. D2 and 3 are not that of her.   A perusal of the signatures the Ext.D2 and D3  and the signature in the complaint and vakalath would show that there is  glaring difference.  It is quite possible that difference in the signature of a person can occur with the  efflux of time but the  basic futures will not change out that is not the case herein when the complainant has denied her signature in Exts. D2 and D3, the burden is on the opp.party to establish that the signatures in Ext. D2  and D3 are those of the complainant  herself by adducing cogent evidence.  One of the best  document to prove the admitted signature of the complainant was the proposal form which was not produced for reason best known to the opp.parties.

          The complainant’s case is that she became aware of the loss of policy only when she intended to surrender the policy in 2008.   She pleads ignorance as to how it reached the hands of opp.parties.   As pointed out earlier when an application for loan against a policy is received along with the policy certificate and the policy holder is identified by the Insurance  Agent through whom the policy was taken the opp.parties cannot be blamed for sanctioning the loan without further verification of signature.  But when a dispute with regard to a signature in the loan application is raised the opp.party  is  found  to prove that the signature in Ext. D2 and D3 are those of the complainant which in our view they failed to discharge.  Other than examining DW.2 no admitted signature of the Insured was  produced.

          The complainant is a house wife and it cannot be believed that she would approach a court for a meager sum if it is not a bonafide case.  However no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming with regard to the missing of the policy.   According to the learned counsel for the complainant the lost policy might have been utilized by some one with the help of DW.2 and applied for loan forging the signature of the complainant and the opp.parties have a duty to verify the signature of the applicant in the loan application before  passing  the loan.  There is some  force in that argument .  Even at the time of evidence the opp.parties other than relying on the evidence of DW.2  produced no admitted signature of the complainant with them in. the proposal form or sought for the production of admitted signature of the complainant or sough for expert opinion despite the fact that the burden in this regard is heavily on the opp.parties.

          There is also no reliable evidence to show that the loan amount was actually disbursed to the complainant Ext. X1 though  would show that the amount was disbursed to one Anitha the details of such account holder are not  forthcoming.   DW.3 who produced Ext. X1 has stated in cross examination that it cannot be said that it is the complainant who presented the cheque and got it encashed.   The evidence of DW.3  and Ext. X1will not help the opp.parties  to establish that it was the complainant who is referred to in Ext.X1.   Usually a party  cannot be blamed for not verifying the  signature in the loan applications when the applicant is introduced by persons known to them.  Here even after the complainant raised  dispute regarding her signature in the loan application the opp.party failed  to establish that the signature in the application  is that of the insured by producing  admitted signature of the applicant or getting expert opinion.  In this case the non production of proposal Form as argued by the complainant  leads to an adverse inference. On a careful consideration of the entire evidence in this case  we find that the opposite parties failed to establish that the signature in Ext.D2 loan application is that of the complainant and as such the complainant is entitled to get the entire amount of surrender value as per Ext.D1 policy. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Points found accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed directing opposite parties to pay the complement Rs.22920/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complainant till realization and Rs.5000/- towards compensation and costs.

          The order is to be complied with within  one month from the date of this order..

Dated this the       30^th          day of November 2010.

:

I N D E X

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1. – J. Anitha

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Letter dated 6.2.08

P2. – Form No 3510 dated 6.2.08

P3. – Form No.5074

P4.- Advocate notice

P5. – Reply notice.

C1. - Statements

List of witnesses for the opp.parties

DW.1. – N. Chandrasekharan

DW.2. – G.Sivaraman Nair

DW.3. – Arun Mathai

List of documents for the opp.party

D1. –LIC Schedule

D2.- Application for loan

D3. - Instructions