BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H.Prasad,B.A.,LL.B. President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Thursday the 10th day of July, 2008
C.C.No. 143/07
Between:
K. Zikirya Ali Khan, S/o. K. Azam Khan, Retd., School Assistant,
R/o.H.No.3/137-2, New Postal Colony, Balaji Nagar, Kurnool. … Complainant
Versus
1.The Senior Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Kurnool.
2.The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Kadapa.
3.The Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, South Central Zonal Office,
Jeevan Bhagya Saifabad, Hyderabad-500 063. … Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.Akram, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.I.Anantha Rama Sastry, Advocate, for the opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No.143/07
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/s 12 of C.P.Act, seeking the payment of Rs.50,000/- towards the amount of New Jeevan Suraksha policy No.652818062 and interest of 18% thereon along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- , damages of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/- from the opposite parties alleging the deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in not paying him the policy amount even after its maturity and due payment of all its premiums @ Rs.10,000/- per year for 5 years and after many letters and legal notice seeking the payment of maturity amount and the acts of the opposite parties caused mental agony as he could not met the pressing needs for want of amount.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties caused their appearance and contested the case by filling counter affidavit denying its liability alleging the non exercise of option regarding type of annuity by the complainant and there being any condition in the policy providing for payment of notional cash option after the date of vesting on surrender.
3. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant’s side has relied upon the documentary record in Ex.A1 to A6 and the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of its case the opposite party relied upon documentary record in Ex.B1 to B3 and its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its defence.
4. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the liability of the opposite parties to the claim made in the complaint.
5. The Ex.A1 is attested Xerox of new Jevan Suraksha Plan I (with profits) policy bearing No.652818062 commencing on 28-3-2002 standing on the name of the complainant under table and deferment period 147-05 with annual premium payment @ Rs. 10,000/- and maturity to 28-3-2007 for a notional caption of Rs.50,058/- and showing Kalabalunnisa wife of the complainant as nominee. The issual of the policy being not denied by the opposite party, the policy and its contents remains established as found therein.
6. The Ex.A2 is the office copy of letter dated 16-4-2007 of the complainant addressed to opposite party No.1 seeking the payment of surrender value of the policy in Ex.A1. The said notice in Ex.A2 even though acknowledged by the opposite parties 1 and 2 it was not responded with any reply. This letter in Ex.A2 mentions that on verifications of the records of the dispatch section of the opposite parties, no letter was dispatched to his address with an intimation of maturity of option for exercising payment of annuity. The said fact averred therein was not responded by the opposite parties contradicting the truth therein at the earliest possibility left with it on service of Ex.A2. The Ex.B2 attested Xerox extract of dispatch register alleging the dispatch made to the complainant at Sl.No.38 dated 31-1-2007 is not remaining beyond reasonable doubt for being acted upon , especially when the Ex.A3 also reiterates its facts and not suitably replied, and especially when the office copy of the optional letter said to have been sent vide Ex.B2, bears the date 1-2-2007. The Ex.A4 is the office copy of legal notice dated 17-6-2007 addressed to the opposite parties 1 to 3 and to others and the said notice was acknowledged by the opposite parties 1 to 3 in the said notice also. The complainant alleges that the opposite party was not informed about the right of option as regards the payment of policy amount by any intimation or any letter . The Ex.A5 the letter dated 26-6-2007 given in response to Ex.A4 says the policy holder is supposed to exercise the option on or before date of vesting of annuity i.e.
28-3-2007 and the surrender cannot be made.
7. The Ex.A5 alleges that as per the policy conditions and privileges printed in policy bond vide 7 (1) of the policy, the policy cannot be surrendered after the date on which the policy annuity vests i.e. 28-3-2007 and the policy holder is supposed to exercise the option (surrender) on or before the date of vesting of annuity. The Ex.A1 finds any such condition as mentioned in Ex.A5. The Ex.B3 office copy of the policy takes mention of said condition No.7 under caption guaranteed surrender value with two limbs. The first limb concerns to annual premium policy, the second one concern to single premium policy. The first limb says that the policy can be surrendered for cash at any time after premium have been paid for at least two years but before the date of which the annuity vests, for an amount equal to 90% of all premiums paid excluding the premium for first year and term assurance premium and extra premium, if any and the policy can not be surrendered after the date on which annuity vest. The perusal of Ex.A1/B3 indicates that it is a annual premium policy for 5 years at a premium of Rs.10,000/- p.a and the date of vesting annuity as 28-3-2007. Hence, if the complainant wanted surrender for the amount entitled under condition No.7 he ought to have surrendered the policy earlier to the said 28-3-2007 i.e., date of vesting annuity irrespect of the fact whether he has exercised the annuity option available under the said policy or not. But where as his endeavour for the surrender amount appears to have commenced with Ex.A2 dated 16-4-2007 which by its date appears to be sufficiently after to said 28-3-2007 date of vesting annuity. Hence, under the said condition the complainant is not remaining entitled for seeking surrender value of the policy.
8. The Ex.B3 the policy containing the conditions no where obligates the policy holder to exercise option either along with the proposal for the policy or after obtaining the policy prescribing any time limit. When such is the thing and the policy provides as many of 5 annuity options and when the complainant has not exercised any of such option in his proposal, the opposite party who has issued the Ex.A1/B3 policy infavour of complainant ought to have either insisted the complainant for exercise of necessary option before issual of the policy or in case the complainant was indifferent in exercising any of the options he ought to have not issued policy at all. Hence by issual of Ex.B3 policy infavour of the complainant, inspite of non exercise of option annuity option by the complainant, appears to be a deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
9. In the said state of circumstances where there is any exercise of annuity option by the complainant and any proper insistence by the opposite parties for exercise of said option by the complainant, the policy in Ex.B3 standing in the name of the complainant even though termed as New Jevan Suraksha Plan I (with profits) is to be deemed as an ordinary policy payable for the total of the premiums paid with entitled profits and dividends especially when any condition or provision has been shown by the opposite parties as to how the policy is to be deemed in the absence of exercise of any annuity option by the policy holder.
10. Further the deficiency of the opposite party No.1 is remaining more clear in the absence of any material as to informing the complainant as to various available options and their features inspite of being advised under Ex.A6 by opposite party No.3.
11. The complaint alleges the various pressing needs of the complainant. It is common for any person to save the amounts to met the needs. In the supra stated circumstances when the complainant approached for the amount after the maturity of the policy which for the discussion made in supra paras can not be strictly deemed as was named, the opposite party ought to have paid the due entitled amount to the complainant treating the policy as a normal policy. As the opposite party has not chosen to that effect the said conduct of the opposite parties not only amounting to deficiency but also ensuing mental agony to the complainant for being deprived of amount for his needs. Further by the above said deficient conduct the opposite parties driven the complainant to the forum for redressal of his grievances the opposite parties are liable for cost of litigation.
12. consequently, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay to the complainant the total of the premium amount with entitled dividend and bonus treating the policy as a normal policy and also to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/ as cost of litigation within a month of receipt of this order. In default the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant the supra award amount with 9% interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 10th July 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Attested Xerox copy of policy issued to the complainant.
Ex.A2. Office copy of letter, dated 16-4-2007 of complainant
to opposite parties along with two acknowledgements.
Ex.A3. Office copy of letter, dated 2-5-2007.
Ex.A4. Office copy of legal notice, dated 17-6-2007 along
With (3) three acknowledgements of Ops 1 to 3.
Ex.A5. Xerox copy of reply notice, dated 28-6-02007 of OP. No.1.
Ex.A6. Xerox copy of reply notice, dated 29-6-2007 of Secretary
JDJA cell.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Office copy of the option letter, dated 01-2-2007
(No.in 4 papers)
Ex.B2. Attested Xerox extract of dispatch register – showing the Dispatch made to the complainant at Sl.No.38, dated 31-1-2007
(No.in 2 papers)
Ex.B3. Office copy of the policy holder with LIC.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties.
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
Copy was posted on :
