Delhi

East Delhi

CC/481/2015

DEEPALI - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC of India - Opp.Party(s)

10 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 481/15

 

Ms. Deepali Mehta

D/o  Shri Ramesh Mehta

R/o H. No. 83, Priya Enclave

Karkardooma, New Delhi – 110 092                                     ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

Life Insurance Corporation of India

Branch office: 12F, Mayur Vihar

Branch 13/14, DDA Shopping Centre

Pocket-II, Phase-I, Mayur Vihar,

Delhi – 110 092                                                                              ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 31.08.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 10.11.2016

Judgment Passed on: 22.11.2016

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Ms. Deepali Mehta has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against LIC of India (OP) for refund the amount of Rs. 25,000/-, compensation Rs. 50,000/- on account of harassment, mental agony and pain and Rs. 25,000/- as cost of litigation.

 2.       Complainant had a policy no. 111279813 for a period of 24 years.  On maturity, complainant received a letter of dated 16.12.2014 from the respondent stating the maturity amount as Rs. 1,25,000/-.  She was asked to submit necessary documents, which she did so.  However, she was shocked when officer of the respondent handed over a cheque for an amount of Rs. 1,05,046/- on 23.02.2015.  When she enquired, she was told that they have issued two new policies in the name of the complainant vide policy no. 117552198 and 1175521164.  She told the respondent officer that she never gave any permission nor put her signatures for issuance of policy.  She made a request for cancellation of new policies and refund of the balance amount.  However, she did not get any satisfactory reply.  Though, she has written a letter of dated 24.03.2015.  This, she has stated to be unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of respondent for which she stated to have suffered lot of loss in the business.  Thus, she has claimed an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as refund and also for cancellation of new policies.  She has also claimed compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 25,000/- as cost of litigation.

3.        In the written statement, LIC of India have stated that complainant intimated the OP for investment of Rs. 20,054/- and on her instructions, two insurance policies bearing no. 117552198 and 1175521164 for       Rs. 20,000/- were issued after deductions of Rs. 20,054/-.  Balance maturity amount of Rs. 1,05,046/- was paid to the complainant.  It has further been stated that the complaint was not maintainable, as policy was not issued by the branch office of Mayur Vihar.  The same was issued by the branch office of Pushp Vihar, Saket, which does not fall under the jurisdiction of this Forum; the complainant has not come with clean hands as she was issued two policies at her instructions.  Thus, it has been stated that her complaint was not maintainable at all.

4.        The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OP, wherein she has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted her pleas.

5.        In support of its complaint, the complainant has examined herself.  She has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.

            In defence, LIC of India have examined Shri D.K. Joshi, Manager (Legal), who have deposed on affidavit.  He has also narrated the facts, which have been stated in the written statement.  He has also got exhibited documents, such as copy of letter of the complainant to the branch office (OP-W-1/1), two policies, issued in the name of the complainant (OP-W-1/2) and (OP-W-1/3). 

6.        We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  The first and foremost argument, which has been advanced on behalf of the OP, has been that this Forum was not having territorial jurisdiction as the policy was issued by their branch office at Pushp Vihar, Saket.  He has further argued that complaint was not maintainable as LIC of India (OP) have issued two policies at the instance of the complainant.  On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the question of jurisdiction cannot be pleaded as this tribunal was competent to decide the case.  Further, he has argued that the complainant did not instruct LIC of India (OP) to have new policies.  He has also disputed the signatures on the  re-investment letter (Ex. OP-W-1/1).

            The first and foremost point, which requires determination, is with regard to the jurisdiction of this tribunal.  Admittedly, the policies have been issued by their branch office of Pushp Vihar, Saket.  Not only that the maturity letter also flow from the said branch.  No doubt, the policy and the maturity letter has been issued from their branch office at Pushp Vihar, Saket, certainly, this tribunal was not having jurisdiction to admit the complaint.  The fact that the complaint has been at the final stage, it will result in injustice to the complainant if the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the OP is accepted at this stage.  This argument of Ld. Counsel for the OP cannot come in the way of imparting substantial justice, as the competence of the forum is not in question.  When the competence of this forum is not in question, the technical ground of territorial jurisdiction cannot be accepted.  Therefore, the argument of Ld. Counsel for OP that this tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction cannot be accepted and the same stands rejected.

            Coming to the second argument that re-investment was done at the instructions of the complainant, for this, evidence on record has to be perused.  If a look is made to the testimony of Shri D.K. Joshi, Manager (Legal), he has got exhibited in his testimony copy of letter of the complainant to the branh office, duly signed by Insurance Agent and Development Officer of the branch (Ex.OP-W1/1) , it is noticed that this letter has been given to LIC of India for re-investment of ULIP surrender policy no. 111279813 for an amount of Rs. 20,054/- towards new policies.  Though, the complainant has disputed her signatures but the fact that she has not brought any evidence on record to substantiate this fact, her plea that she has not signed on this form cannot be accepted.  Not only that even LIC of India have issued two new policies in the name of the complainant against the surrender value of Rs. 20,054/-.  When they have issued two new policies for the same re-invested, there cannot be said to be any deficiency on the part of LIC of India or any unfair trade practice.  The complainant is free to get both the policies cancelled.

7.        In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency or any unfair trade practice on the part of LIC of India (OP).  Hence, her complaint deserves dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

             File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

 

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President