<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 26.02.2009<br /> DISPOSED: 31.07.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 31ST JULY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.484/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.N.Sureshan,<br /> C/o.G.Marappa, Opp. Maruthi High School,<br /> Kanakapura Road,<br /> Tathaguni Post,<br /> Bangalore – 560 062.<br /> <br /> <br /> Party in Person<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2 Life Insurance Corporation <br /> of India, <br /> Yogekshema, Nariman Point, Mumbai.<br /> <br /> Life Insurance Corporation<br /> Of India,<br /> K.G.Road, Bangalore.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.S.Ashok<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation and punitive damages on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> 2. Complainant is the Policy Holder bearing No.073900281 and 64244155. Policy No.073900381 matured on 28-11-2007. Though the complainant was prompt in making payment of premium regularly, OP failed to release the matured amount in time inspite of the repeated request and demands made by him. OP took time of nearly 1 year 3 months to release the said maturity amount. As regards other policy OP is not promptly maintaining the records. Hence, for no fault of his he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Thus felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 3. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to the OP this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and the complainant has suppressed certain material facts, which are well within his knowledge. Complainant is expected to produce the policy bound and other connecting documents to release the maturity amount. Inspite of repeated request and demands made by the OP, complainant failed to comply the same. The other policy lapsed because of default in payment of the premium in time. With all that OP on humanitarian consideration released the maturity amount. Complainant encashed the same that would have been the end of the matter. But still complainant has come up with this false and frivolous complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The delay in release of the maturity amount is because of the non-co-operation from the complainant. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant is the policy holder bearing No. 073900381 which matured on 28-11-2007. It is also not in dispute that the complainant had another policy under SSS scheme bearing No.64244155. Now the grievances of the complainant is that even after the date of maturity of the said policy inspite of his repeated request and demands OP failed to release the said amount and insisted for an called documents. Hence he felt deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 8. On the other hand it is contended by the OP that the complainant has suppressed certain material facts which are well within his knowledge. The complainant has assigned the said policy in favour of the Bank, but latter on he lost it. He sought for the duplicate and duplicate policy was issued. Again he lost it. So there is a default on the part of the complainant in not maintaining the policy as contemplated. This contention of the OP is not denied by the complainant. Under such circumstances we have no other go but to believe OP in that regard.<br /> <br /> 9. It is further contented by the OP that in order to release the maturity value complainant is expected to furnish proper discharge voucher duly signed accompanied by the policy bound and the other connected documents. It appears complainant failed to comply the said requirement inspite of sufficient and reasonable opportunity as being given to him. When the complainant himself failed to comply the statutory obligations and requirements to settle the claim he cannot allege the default in service and the delay in settlement of the said claim. It may be due to the communication gap and due to the non-co-operation by the complainant. Ultimately on humanitarian consideration OP settled the maturity claim, sent the cheque for the said amount on 05-02-2009 complainant encashed it on 18-02-2009. With all that complainant has come up with this complaint within a span of another 10 days. This speaks of the ulterior motive and intention of the complainant. Of course OP settled the said claim including the bonus, interest as contemplated, but still what made the complainant to file this complaint is not known. <br /> <br /> 10. As regards another policy complainant is in default in making payment of the premium in time. Subsequently the delayed payments are collected with interest. Ultimately the said policy came to be lapsed. But still OP has renewed the said policy at the request of the complainant and now the complainant is in due of the statutory premium. So on the perusal of these facts and circumstances and the documents produced by the litigating parties we are of the view that the complainant is the beneficiary. He is not put to any monitory loss. <br /> <br /> 11. The delay in settling the claim is because of the non co-operation of the complainant and there is no malafide intention. Under such circumstances the complainant does not deserves any interest on the so called delayed payment which includes bonus etc. The complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Hence, complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed there is no proof of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 31st day of July 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> NRS <br /> <br />