Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 540.
Instituted on : 05.11.2018.
Decided on : 06.11.2019.
Mohit age 23 years, s/o Sh. Tarif Singh R/o Vill. Morkheri Pana Lakhra, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Jagdish s/o Sh. Dayanand R/o Vill. Morkheri Paana Nanadu District Rohtak.
- Life Insurance Corporation of India, Subhash Road, Rohtak.
- Life Insurance Corporation of India, August Kranti, 011R, Plot no.25, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110001.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Opposite party No.1 in person.
Sh.Puneet Chahal, Advocate for the opposite party No.2 & 3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party no.1 i.e. agent of opposite party No.2 & 3, contacted the mother of complainant and conveyed a scheme of insurance, as per which an amount of Rs.10000/- was to be deposited for three years and after 16 years, the maturity value will be of Rs.16 lacs. Accordingly, the mother of complainant had taken the scheme vide LIC No.175399548 and deposited three installments of Rs.10000/- each for three years. In the month of October 2018, opposite party no.1 told the complainant to take the refund of policy amounting to Rs.28000/- but for future there was no guarantee as such. Complainant contacted the office of opposite parties and came to know that opposite party no.1 has cheated the complainant. Opposite party no.1 by cheating has invested the money of the complainant in share market and had caused loss to the complainant. That the act of opposite party No.1 is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.1600000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in preliminary objections of his reply has submitted that respondent no.1 is simply an agent and he fully disclosed the terms and conditions of the scheme to the mother of complainant and except this he has no role to play in the matter in question. The amount, if any, is to be paid by the respondent no.2 & 3 as per terms and conditions of the policy. On merits, it is submitted that respondent no.1 has made clear to the mother of complainant that she has to deposit the premium for 20 years and thereafter maturity amount will be provided to her. But she paid premium just for three years and thereafter stopped paying the further premium. The answering opposite party has not invested the amount of mother of complainant in share market in any manner. The answering opposite party has not played any fraud nor caused any type of mental tension or harassment to her. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party no.2 & 3 in their reply has submitted that policy no.175399548 is unit linked plan with date of commencement 05.03.2007 under the plan and term 180-20 premium paying term 20 years and yearly premium Rs.10000/- issued to Mohit s/o Tarif Singh. The complainant has paid premium only for 3 years i.e. from 3/2007 to 3/2009 and no further premium was paid. Hence policy was foreclosed as per policy condition. The answering respondent has foreclosed the policy and value payable under the policy is Rs.30018/-. The complainant is not entitled for any relief against the answering opposite party in any manner.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed his evidence on dated 27.03.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1/1 and closed his evidence on dated 01.08.2019. Ld. counsel for OP No.2 & 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed his evidence on dated 13.09.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party no.1 has cheated the mother of complainant and told her to pay only 3 installments of Rs.10000/- each and thereafter, she will get Rs.16 lacs after 16 years. Accordingly the complainant has paid 3 instalments of Rs.10000/- each and opposite parties invested her money in unit linked plan without her knowledge but after 3 years, she was told by the agent i.e. opposite part No.1 to take back the money of Rs.28000/-, failing which she will not be entitled to get any amount.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the date of commencement of policy is 05.03.2007 and the date of last due is 03/2026. But after three years the premium paid by the complainant was freezed and the same was not disclosed to the mother of complainant as the complainant was minor. Lateron this fact was told by the agent that only amount of Rs.28000/- is payable to the complainant. However no notice or letter etc. regarding foreclosure of policy or freezing of amount has been issued to the complainant by the opposite parties which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such opposite parties are liable to refund the amount paid by the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 & 3 to refund the amount of Rs.30000/-(Rupees thirty thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of freezing the amount till its realization and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. However, opposite party no.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service for promoting misleading advertisement. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
9. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
06.11.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
