1. The fact of the case of complainant invested Rs. 12,000/- p.a. in the Unit Linked Star Plus 11 insurance policy vide policy no. 11835742 on 26.04.2008 for a term of 10 years and paid the premium upto 26.04.2018 wherein his daughter Neha Ali is the beneficiary and will receive the matured amount.  It is alleged the concerned agent in the alleged policy has filled up the proposal form wrongly mentioned the age of his daughter as 23.10.199 instead of 24.04.2000 as mentioned in the School Certificate.  It is alleged that after maturity period, while the complainant approached the O.Ps to settle the maturity benefits, they suggested to submit an affidavit regarding the date of birth of his daughter and also the complainant submitted an affidavit to the O.Ps, but the O.Ps did not released his maturity benefits, for which the complainant issued a legal notice and in reply the O.Ps suggested to submit fresh affidavit alongwith all relevant documents.  Since the maturity benefits was not released, being harassed mentally and financially, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps. to settle the maturity benefits with interest and to pay Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation expenses.

2. The Opp. Parties appeared through their Ld. Counsel and filed their written version admitting the issuance of the insurance policy vide no. 11835742 in favour of complainant, but denied with the allegations of challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum to try the case.  It is also contended that the features of the alleged insurance policy was properly explained to the complainant and thereafter the alleged policy was executed as per the information provided by the complainant. It is also contended that the complainant has paid only 5 nos. of premium instead of 10 nos. of full premiums.  Further it is contended that they have advised the complainant file fresh affidavit and other documents in support of the age proof of the beneficiary to process the claim, but the complainant has not submitted all those documents for which the maturity amount is pending for disbursed and with other contentions, showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case.
    
3. Complainant filed certain documents in support of his allegations like :
   1. Copy of insurance policy.
   2. Copy of Aadhar Card bearing no. 8770 1431 7661 of complainant.
   3. Copy of Aadhar Card bearing no. 9398 3460 7735 of Neha Begum.
   4. Copy of bank pass book vide a/c no. 31263711991 of complainant.
   5. Copy of HSCE certificate of Neha Begum.
   6. Copy of bank pass book vide a/c no. 33304364368 of Neha Bugum.
   7. Copy of affidavit sworn before Notary Public, Balimela dated 08.05.2018.
   8. Copy of affidavit sworn before Notary Public, Malkangiri dated 08.09.2018.
   9. Copy of reply dated 22.08.2019 to legal notice 01.08.2019.
   10. Copy of affidavit sworn before Notary Public, Malkangiri dated 13.10.2018.
   11. Copy of affidavit sworn before Executive Magistrate, Malkangiri dated 06.12.2019.

Whereas the O.P. did not choose to file any documents except certain verdicts of higher Forums. Heard from the parties present and perused the case records and material documents available therein.

4. In the instant case, issuance of life insurance vide policy no. 11835742 dated 26.04.2008 named HDFC Unit Linked Star Plus 11 with premium of Rs. 12,000/- p.a. for premium paying term of 10 years is an admitted fact.  The allegations of complainant is that at the time of submitting the proposal form the concerned agent has filled up the form and on basis of such information the insurance policy was issued and after maturity period while he approached the O.Ps for maturity benefits, the O.Ps have denied to settle the claim on the ground the date of birth of beneficiary is mismatched.  In that regard, as per suggestions of O.Ps, complainant submitted all the relevant documents alongwith affidavits sworn before different authorities as required by the O.Ps, but till date the O.Ps have not released the maturity benefits.  Whereas the O.Ps have challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum and also contended that the complainant has not submitted the affidavits and other documents, for which the maturity benefits is pending for disbursement.
    
5. We have gone through the documents filed by the parties and ascertained that the O.Ps have challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Fora to entertain the case.  In this connection we would like to make it clear that O.Ps being the insurance service provider, they run their insurance business throughout the country to obtain insurance policies from the general public and the insurance companies are very anxious to obtain insurance policy wherever they get any opportunity.  Hence we do not think that always territorial jurisdiction is a bar in case of insurance service provider. Further we do not feel that insurance condition relates to a result of negotiated contract between the parties and during obtaining the alleged insurance policy and the O.P. has explained the condition relating to the territorial jurisdiction of insurance policy.  In this connection, we have fortified with the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Bhandari Interstate Carriers and another Vrs M/s A.K. Synthetics, wherein it is held that “Jurisdiction – Condition stipulated on the goods receipt that “all disputes subject to Delhi Jurisdiction” – Whether State Commission, Rajasthan had jurisdiction had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint ?  State Commission held that there was no proof that the condition relating jurisdiction was the result of a negotiated contract.  The complainant had not agreed with that condition.  It was further found that the condition that “all disputes subject to Delhi Jurisdiction” did not exclude the jurisdiction of the State Commission which otherwise it had under the law as a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the State Commission – analysis of State Commission upheld.” Hence considering the above observation, we feel that this Forum is having ample jurisdiction to entertain the present dispute and also maintainable under this Forum.  
    
6. Further the prime dispute between the parties regarding submission of relevant documents by the complainant to the O.Ps.  The allegations of complainant although he has submitted all the relevant documents as required by O.Ps from time to time regarding the date of birth of the beneficiary under the alleged policy, whereas the only contention of O.Ps is that the complainant has not submitted the relevant documents as required by them.  We have gone through the documents filed by the complainant and ascertained that complainant filed the documents of beneficiary under the alleged policy like copy of Aadhar Card bearing no. 9398 3460 7735, copy of HSCE certificate, copy of bank pass book, copy of affidavits sworn before the Notary Public dated 08.05.2018, 08.09.2018, 13.10.2018 and affidavit sworn before the Executive Magistrate, Malkangiri dated 06.12.2019 and all those documents executed as per the requirement of the O.Ps During hearing, A/R for complainant submitted that all those documents are handed over to the O.Ps at their Berhampur Branch which was never challenged by the A/R for O.Ps at any time.From the above submissions of parties, we feel, complainant has handed over the relevant documents as per requirement of O.Ps at their Berhampur Branch i.e. with O.P. No. 2.
    
7. Further it is seen that O.Ps. have not filed any document to make out any contradiction and without any cogent evidence, the version of O.Ps cannot be believable. 
    
8. Further it is ascertained from the submissions of the parties that the complainant has deposited only 5 nos. of premium @ Rs. 12,000/- per annum and in toto he deposited Rs. 60,000/-. As such he is entitled only the deposited amount with vested bonus as applicable.  Further as per submissions of complainant and the material documents, it is observed that the complainant has tried his level best to get the genuine claims from the Opp. Party, but failed, for which he must have suffered from mental agony and physical harassment and is compelled to file this case to seek proper reliefs incurring some expenses.  Hence this order.

                                                                                         ORDER

The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The Opp. Parties being the insurer, is herewith directed to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 60,000/- with vested bonus as applicable in the year 2012 to the complainant alongwith Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant.  And all the direction should be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs. 60,000/- shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of maturity date i.e. April, 2018 till payment.  

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 17^th day of February, 2021.          Issue free copy to the parties concerned.