COMPLAINT FILED: 25.10.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 28th FEBRUARY 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 2300/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri. Kunku Venkateshwara Rao Chowdari,<br /> S/o. Gangaiah,<br /> Aged about 51 years,<br /> Residing at No. 128, <br /> 3rd Cross, <br /> Gayarti Devi Park Extension,<br /> Vyalikaval,<br /> Bangalore – 03.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (G.G. Shastri)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Life Insurance Corporation <br /> of India,<br /> Civil Station East Branch,<br /> Oriental Building,<br /> Ground Floor,<br /> M.G. Road,<br /> Bangalore.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (S.M. Gajendran)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<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 revive the policy No. 610738619 by collecting the balance of premium and pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and for such other reliefs 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 /> Complainant took the insurance policy from the OP and then availed a loan of Rs.66,940/- on the said policy repayable in 5 years. Complainant is regular in making payment of the premium as well as the loan EMI, but due to some personal inconvenience he was unable to pay the interest on the loan amount. OP made an exorbitant claim of Rs.53,009/- towards the interest by addressing a letter dated 30.10.2007, complainant disputed the same. All his requests and demands made to OP to recall the said interest, went in vain. In the meantime the said policy lapsed. Though complainant was prepared to pay the interest due on the loan in one lump sum, OP failed to revive the said policy. There is no legal bar whatsoever on the part of the OP to accept the offer made by the complainant, unfortunately OP turned its deaf ears. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant took Jeevan Shree Policy without profit with a quarterly premium payable at the rate of Rs.7,319/-. The last premium paid by the complainant is for the month of December 2005, thereafter he became the chronic defaulter. Of course OP sanctioned the said loan on the basis of the said policy in the month of March 2002, but as the complainant failed to pay the premium and failed to pay the interest accrued on the said loan OP is forced to intimate the complainant to comply the terms and conditions of the loan, but it went in futile. They have also sent the notice to the complainant on 13.08.2007 informing about the default, again there was no response. Hence the said policy stood lapsed. Nearly after 5 years after the lapse of the policy complainant made an offer to pay unpaid loan with interest. As the policy was already lapsed OP did not accept the said offer. There is no possibility to revive the said policy as it has been surrendered to the loan outstanding as per the rules and terms and conditions. There is no proof of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. 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 the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. 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 /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant took the policy from the OP under Jeevan Shree Policy Without Profit for Rs.5,00,000/- with a premium payable quarterly at the rate of Rs.7,319/-. According to the complainant he is prompt in making payment of the premium, but it is not so as could be seen from the records and documents produced. Further complainant says that he has availed a loan of Rs.66,940/- on the basis of the insurance policy repayable in 5 years. He did make payment of the loan amount in part including the premium, but due to personal difficulties, he was unable to pay the interest. As already observed by us, there is a default on the part of the complainant in not making payment of the premium as per the schedule so also the loan amount. As admitted by the complainant he is defaulter in paying the interest also. So all these circumstances clearly speaks about the fault on the part of the complainant himself.<br /> <br /> 7. According to the OP complainant paid the last premium in the month of December 2005. That fact is not disputed by the complainant. Though complainant took the loan in the month of March 2002, he stopped making payment of the premium and loan amount including that of the interest. It appears OP made demand by causing the notice on 13.08.2007 informing the complainant that in case of default of payment of the EMI instalments and interest the policy will be lapsed, but complainant failed to respond to the said call. Under such circumstances OP by invoking the rules, terms and conditions laid down with respect to the said loan under they treated the policy as lapsed and it was written of as foreclosed. That act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 8. Strangely complainant after many more years of lapse of the policy approached the OP to revive the same. What made the complainant to keep mum for all these years is not known. He has not satisfactorily explained about his default in repayment of the loan amount and the schedule premium including that of the interest. Under such circumstances naturally it is not possible for the OP to revive the policy because the said policy has been surrendered to the loan outstanding including the interest. It is a discretion rests with OP. We find that OP has acted in accordance with the established rules, regulations and the terms and conditions of the said loan policy. The approach of the complainant does not appears to be bonafide and reasonable. The complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <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 him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 28th day of February 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />