DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT
C.C. No. : 61 of 2018
Date of Institution: 6.04.2018
Date of Decision : 12.06.2019
Krian Rani alias Shimla Devi wife of Amrit Lal r/o Village Sukhanand, Tehsil Bagha Purana, District Moga, Punjab, India.
...Complainant
Versus
- Mrs Satwinder Kaur w/o Gurbhej Singh Agency Code No.10839 r/o VPO : Bajakhana, District Faridkot, in the capacity of Agent with LIC of India, BO: Faridkot.
- The Manager, LIC of India Jeevan Jyoti Building, Bhan Singh Colony, Faridkot.
- The Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Office, Model Town, Jeevan Parkash Building, Jallandhar 144001.
.............OPs
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,
Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.
Present: Sh Pardeep Atwal, Ld Counsel for Complainant,
Sh Sukhchain Singh Sandhu, Ld Counsel for OP-1,
Sh Lakhwinder Singh, Ld Counsel for OP-2 and 3.
ORDER
(Ajit Aggarwal, President)
cc no. - 61 of 2018
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to pay Rs.48040/- in respect of Insurance Policy No.133439684 and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and harassment alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.5,500/-.
2 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased the Insurance Policy No.133439684 dated 16.04.2011 from OP-1 agent of OPs and she was paying premiums regularly of Rs.12,010/-for an year through their agent and said agent used to deposit the same in the office of LIC against proper receipts. It is submitted that complainant handed over Rs.48,040/-to OP-1 to pay premiums for the years 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 and OP-1 assured to give receipt. Thereafter, complainant again asked OP-1 to deposit her further premium, but said agent ignored the same and then, complainant herself approached the office of OPs on 21.02.2017 to deposit premium, but she was surprised to know that her case was closed due of non payment of premiums. She immediately filed application with OP-2 to redress her grievance but they did not take any action. Thereafter, complainant made several requests to Ops to make payment of her premiums, but all in vain. All this act and conduct of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental tension to complainant. Complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to pay
cc no. - 61 of 2018
Rs.20,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.5500/- besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.
3 The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 11.04.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.
4 On receipt of the notice, the OP-1 filed written statement wherein she has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op-1. It is averred that complainant herself was bound to deposit her premium regularly with OP-2 and not through OP-1 as OP-1 is not bound to deposit the same with Branch office of LIC. Story made by complainant is false and concocted one and all the allegations of complainant are false. It is denied that complainant ever handed over any amount of Rs.48,040/-to OP-1, rather she herself failed to deposit the same with LIC and now in order to save her, she has put forward a false story. Complainant never approached OP-1 nor made any request to OP-1 to deposit her premium with LIC office and even complainant cannot compel OP-1 to deposit her premiums against policy with LIC Office. It was the duty of complainant to herself deposit the premiums in LIC office. Complainant should not be allowed to take benefit of her own wrongs. It is further averred that no cause of action arises against answering OP and this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear
cc no. - 61 of 2018
and try the present complaint. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and all the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too are refuted being wrong and false and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.
5 Ld Counsel for OP-2 and 3 also filed reply and they have also denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and averred that complainant has filed the present complaint in connivance with OP-1. It is further averred that complainant has deposited only two yearly premiums due for the year April, 2011 and April, 2012 and thereafter, she did not deposit any premium and insurance policy of complainant is lying in lapse mode since 16.04.2013. As per terms and conditions of insurance policy in question, atleast three premiums are required to be deposited for acquiring the paid up value and therefore, nothing is payable to complainant under this Policy. Premiums for the year April 2013 to April, 2016 have not been paid by complainant or her agent. OP-1 agent of OPs have not deposited any premium on behalf of complainant for the years 2013 to year 2016. Moreover, as per rules and regulations of LIC of India, no agent of LIC is authorized to collect any instalment of premium as they never authorize any agent or OP-1 to collect any premium from any insured person and answering OPs are not liable for any kind of unauthorized act of OP-1 and thus, OP-2 and Op-3 are not liable to make any payment or to pay any compensation to complainant. Ld Counsel for OP-2 and 3 brought before the Forum that services of said agent have been
cc no. - 61 of 2018
terminated by them on 1.01.2015. Complainant never approached them regarding any complaint against said agent. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and 3. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.
6 Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. Complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-6 and then, closed the evidence.
7 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Satwinder Kaur Ex OP-1/1 and then, closed the evidence. Ld counsel for OP-2 and 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Jagdeep Sharma ExOP-2,3/1 and document Ex OP-2, 3/2 and then, their evidence was closed by order of this Forum dated 27.05.2019.
8 We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties.
9 Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that complainant purchased the Insurance Policy in question from OP-1 agent of OPs and was paying premiums regularly through said agent, who used to deposit the same in the office of LIC against proper receipts. It is submitted that complainant handed over Rs.48,040/-to OP-1 to pay premiums for the years 2013, 2014, 2015 and
cc no. - 61 of 2018
2016 and OP-1 assured to give receipt, but did not give receipt. Thereafter, complainant again asked OP-1 to deposit her further premium, but said agent ignored the same and when, complainant approached OPs on 21.02.2017 to deposit premium, she came to know that her case was closed due of non payment of premiums. She filed application with OP-2 to redress her grievance but they did not take any action. Repeated requests made by complainant to make payment of her premiums, bore no fruit. It amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment to her. She has prayed for accepting the complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief.
10 To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 have argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect. Further argued that complainant herself was bound to deposit her premium as OP-1 is not bound to deposit the same with Branch office of LIC. Complainant never handed over any amount of Rs.48,040/-to OP-1, rather she herself failed to deposit the same with LIC and now she has concocted a false story. Complainant never approached OP-1 nor made any request to OP-1 to deposit her premium with LIC office and even complainant cannot compel OP-1 to deposit her premiums in LIC Office. It was the duty of complainant to deposit the premiums in LIC office. Complainant should not be allowed to take benefit of her own wrongs. There is no deficiency
cc no. - 61 of 2018
in service on the part of OP-1 and all the other allegations are denied being wrong and false and prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.
11 Ld Counsel for OP-2 and 3 have also denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and argued that complainant has filed the present complaint in connivance with OP-1. Nothing is payable to her as complainant has deposited only two yearly premiums due for the year April, 2011 and April, 2012 and thereafter, she did not deposit any premium and her insurance policy is lying in lapse mode since 16.04.2013. As per terms and conditions of insurance policy in question, atleast three premiums are required to be deposited for acquiring the paid up value and therefore, nothing is payable to complainant under this Policy. Premiums for the year April 2013 to April, 2016 have not been paid by complainant or her agent. OP-1 has not deposited any premium on behalf of complainant for the years 2013 to year 2016. As per rules and regulations of LIC of India, no agent of LIC is authorized to collect any instalment of premium as they never authorize any agent or OP-1 to collect any premium from any insured person and they are not liable for any kind of unauthorized act of OP-1 and thus, OP-2 and Op-3 are not liable to for any compensation as sought by complainant. Ld Counsel for OP-2 and 3 brought before the Forum that services of said agent have been terminated by them on 1.01.2015 and even complainant never approached them regarding any complaint against said agent. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
cc no. - 61 of 2018
12 The case of the complainant is that she purchased insurance policy in question from Ops through OP-1 and she used to pay premiums against said policy to OP-1 agent for further depositing the same with OP-2 and Op-3. Grievance of complainant is that she paid premiums for the year 2011 and 2012 in respect of which OP-1 gave proper receipts but for the premium amount of Rs.48,040/-for the years 2013 to 2016, OP-1 did not give her any receipt and when complainant approached OPs to deposit premium for year 2017, she came to know that her policy was lapsed due to non payment of premium amount. Complainant requested OP-2 and 3 to take action against OP-1, but they did not hear her request and also did not return the amount deposited by her against premiums deposited for the years 2011 to 2016, which amounts to deficiency in service. On the other hand, OP-1 denied all the allegations asserting that it was not the duty of OP-1 to deposit premiums of complainant with LIC. Policy was purchased by complainant herself and she was duty bound to deposit the premiums herself and also denied that complainant ever handed over Rs.48,040/-to OP-1. Ld counsel for OP-2 and 3 stressed mainly on the point, their agents are not authorized to collect the premiums and moreover, policy of complainant was in lapsed condition. As such, complainant is not entitled for any benefit under the policy in question. As per terms and conditions of the policy, refund or surrender value of the Policy can only be claimed after continuous three years of policy, but in the present case, the Policy in question continued for only a period of
cc no. - 61 of 2018
two years, so, nothing is payable under the policy to complainant. Document Ex Op-2,3/2 i.e Status Report of Policy No. 133439684 proves the version of OP-2 and 3 that insurance policy of complainant was in lapsed mode due to non payment of premiums. It shows the date of inception of policy 16.04.2011 and last payment date is shown as 24.09.2012 and since 16.04.2013 it was lying in lapsed mode. Policy in question is lying in lapsed condition since 16.04.2013 and thus refund of deposited amount sought by complainant is not admissible. Moreover, Insurance Policy in question has run for only two years and thereafter, she did not deposit any premium and therefore, as per terms and conditions of policy, for obtaining refund or surrender value, payment of premiums up to three years is mandatory and as complainant did not deposit any premium after 2012, therefore, nothing is payable to her.
13 From the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and we are of considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs as it was the duty of complainant to deposit her premiums against policy regularly by herself and she cannot force anybody to deposit premium on her behalf. LIC agents are not authorized to collect and deposit premiums on behalf of insured. Plea taken by complainant that she did not have any knowledge that her policy was in lapse mode, does not seem appropriate. Moreover, it is unacceptable that complainant kept mum for long period of three years from 2013 to 2016, when OP-1 did not give receipts to her for payment of Rs.48,040/- on account of premiums for three years as
cc no. - 61 of 2018
allegedly handed over by her to OP-1. Complainant has failed to prove her case, therefore, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, in peculiar circumstance of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 12.06.02019
Member President
(Param Pal Kaur) (Ajit Aggarwal)
