Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/108/2015

Lovepreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Anshu Gupta

10 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                            Consumer Complaint No.108 of 2015

                                                        Date of institution:  10.12.2015                                      

                                                        Date of decision   :  10.03.2017

1. Lovepreet Singh S/o late Sakinder Singh S/o Mukhtiar Singh R/o Maksoodra Tehsil Payal District Ludhiana.
2. Manpreet Singh S/o Late Sakinder Singh
3. Sukhpreet Kaur D/o Late Sakinder Singh

Both minor through their mother/natural guardian and next friend Jagdeep Kaur widow of Late Sakinder Singh R/o Maksoodra Tehsil Payal District Ludhiana.

4. Jagdeep Kaur widow of Late Sakinder Singh R/o Maksoodra Tehsil Payal District Ludhiana.

……..Complainants

Versus

1. L.I.C. of India, Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash, Post Box No.42, Sector-17 B, Chandigarh through its Marketing Manager.
2.  L.I.C. of India, SO CLIA, SCO No.164, (First Floor) Sector 4-D, above UBI, Kukar Majra, Mandi Gobindgarh through its Branch Manager.
3. Police Department, C/o S.S.P. Office, Police District Khanna.  

…..Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

                  Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

Sh. Inder Jit, Member

 

Present :   Sh. N.S.Toor, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.                                             Sh. M.L.Singhi, Adv.Cl. for OPs No.1 & 2.                           

                  OP No.3 exparte.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                  Complainants, filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                Late Sakinder Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh died on 18.06.2014 due to illness leaving behind his wife Jagdeep Kaur, complainant No.4, son Lovepreet Singh, complainant No.1,  minor son Manpreet Singh, complainant No.2 and minor daughter Sukhpreet Kaur, complainant No.3. After the death of said Sakinder Singh(hereinafter called "DLA") the complainants got the documents regarding the policies from the Almira and came to know that DLA availed three policies bearing No.165950488, 165950489 and 165950490 under LIC's Jeevan Saral( with profits) on 31.08.2012 for the sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/- each from OP No.2. The premium was Rs.2,062/- per month per policy, which were to be deducted from the salary account of the DLA by OP No.3 and the same was to be paid to OPs No.1 & 2 w.e.f. Novermber 2012. The complainants are the nominees in the said policies. The complainants rushed to the office of OP No.2 and surrendered the said policies as asked by OP No.2.  The complainants also deposited all the original documents including the original policies and further requested OP No.2 to proceed further and to give all the benefits under the said policies. OP No.2 suggested the complainants to come after a week and assured that all the benefits under the said policies will be given to the complainants.  Thereafter the complainant Jagdeep Kaur visited the Office of OP No.2 so many times and requested to give the claim amount to the complainants. But it linger on the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly it returned all the documents to the complainant and flatly refused to do any needful in this matter and further disclosed that the policies have been lapsed due to non payment of the monthly premium installments. It was also disclosed that department of OP No.3 did not pay the monthly premium installments in time. Thereafter the complainant rushed to the office of OP No.3 and asked about the premiums which they had paid to OPs No.1 & 2, but it did not give any satisfactory answer. The complainant shocked to know that OP No.3 had not paid the premiums in time to OP No.1 & 2 after deducting the same from the salary account of DLA. Even OPs No.1 & 2 neither sent any reminders to DLA nor even tried to contact regarding the pending premiums. The complainant sought information from OP No.3 through Right to information Act and it revealed that OP No.3 deducted an amount of Rs.6186/- towards the premium of said policies every month from the salary of the DLA w.e.f  November 2012 till January 2014 and it intentionally stop paying the premiums thereafter.  OP No.3 was bound to pay the premiums in time to OPs No.1 & 2.  The OPs No.1 & 2 flatly refused to give benefits despite receiving Rs.92,790/- as premiums and caused great loss to the complainants.  The complainant also served legal notice to OPs but all in vain. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay all the benefits under the policies and to pay Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for quantified loss and damages suffered by the complainants.

3.               Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs but OP No.3 chose not to appear to contest this complaint despite service. Hence,OP No.3 was proceeded against exparte.

4.               The complaint is contested by OPs No. 1 & 2, who filed joint written reply. In reply to the complaint they raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complaint is not maintainable; the complaint is misuse of the legal process; the complainant has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present complaint; the complaint is time barred and the complainants are stopped to file the present complaint by their own act and conduct. As regards to the facts of this complaint, it is stated that premiums of all three policies were not paid by the policy holder or OP No.3 due to which the status of the policies became lapsed for want of non payment of the premiums amount. The first unpaid premium in all three policies was from February 2014. It is further stated that to surrender the policies or to get the surrender value of the policies, it is necessary that the policies should remain inforce at least for three years and the said policies were not remained in force for the period of three years  due to non payment of the premiums. It is further stated that annual status report is sent to every individual SSA policy holder every year and the same were also sent to the DLA from the branch office on 02.05.2014. The DLA had given a letter of undertaking to P.A.(SSP), Khanna that he would be entirely responsible for the consequences on account of non payment of premiums in the policies and he would be responsible for remittance of premiums directly to LIC of India.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 & 2. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.               In order to prove the case the complainant tendered in evidence attested copies of documents i.e. policies Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-3, certificate Ex. C-4, letter dated 10.09.2014 as Ex. C-5, RTI letter Ex. C-6, RTI information Ex. C-7, Bank account statement Ex. C-8, legal notice Ex. C-9, postal receipts Ex. C-10 to Ex. C-13, affidavit of the complainant Ex. C-14 and closed the evidence.  In rebuttal OPs No. 1 & 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. V.K. Arora, Manager Legal, Ex. OP1/1, true copies of documents i.e. letters dated 10.09.2012(3 in numbers) Ex. OP1/2 to OP1/4, status report of three policies Ex. OP1/5 to OP1/7, statement of summoned witness/record Ex. OP1/8 to OP1/10 and closed the evidence.

6.               The ld. counsel for the complainants has stated that the main controversy involved in the present case is that OP No.1 had rejected the claim as the policies had been lapsed due to non payment of the monthly premium installments. He also stated OP No.3 i.e department did not pay the monthly premium installments in time and due to the negligent act of OP No.3 the said polices got lapsed. The ld. counsel pleaded that it has been observed in para no.6 by Hon’ble State Commission, in case titled as L.I.C of India & Anr Vs. Snehalata Nayak,IV CPJ 515, that “Once employer deducts even one installment of premium, remits it to L.I.C, fails thereafter to either deduct or remit premium, L.I.C liable for wrongful act of agent, liable for payment of sum assured”. The ld. counsel argued that it is proved from the material placed on record that OP No.3 was the agent of OP No.1 & 2 thus OP No.1 is liable to make payment of sum assured.

7.               On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP no. 1 & 2 stated that premiums of all three policies were not paid by the policy holder or OP No.3 due to which the status of the policies became lapsed for want of non payment of the premiums amount, hence  OP No.1 & 2 cannot be held liable. The ld. counsel pleaded that annual status report was sent to every  policy holder every year and the same were also sent to the DLA from the branch office on 02.05.2014.He argued that DLA had given a letter of undertaking to P.A.(SSP), Khanna that DLA would be entirely responsible for the consequences on account of non payment of premiums in the policies and DLA would be responsible for remittance of premiums directly to LIC of India. The ld. counsel further argued that the citation cited by the ld. counsel for the complainant is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the DLA had himself instructed OP No.3 not to deduct or remit installment to the L.I.C as it is evident from the letters i.e Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/4. The Ld. counsel relied up on the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi titled as Asha Garg & Ors Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India in 2009(3)CPC 608. The Hon'ble National Commission held, "Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Sections 14(1)(d) & 21(b)- Revival of Policy- Policy lapsed on account of non payment of premium- Policy not revived during life time of assured- No evidence produced on record to prove that premium was accepted by insurer and that information of revival was sent to assured- Policy does not revive automatically nor revival can be claimed as a matter of right- New contract came into force after revival of policy- Acceptance of premium and its retention by insurer does not ipso fact prove revival of policy- No relief can be granted after 18 years of death of assured- However, insurer is directed to pay half of the assured amount to the claimant".

8.               After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions, we find force in the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the OP no.1 & 2.It is proved from the letter of instructions i.e Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/4 that DLA had given a letter of undertaking to P.A.(SSP), Khanna that DLA would be entirely responsible for the consequences on account of non payment of premiums in the policies and DLA would be responsible for remittance of premiums directly to LIC of India. It is further established from the statement of Ranbir Singh,AC-5 account Branch,SSP office, Khanna, that no premium was deducted from the salary account of the DLA from February 2014 on the request of the DLA. In our opinion the complainants have failed to place on record any material to rebut the aforestated evidence.

9.               Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we find that OPs had not committed any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service by rejecting the claim of the complainants. Hence the present complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. Parties to bear their own costs.

10.             Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:10.03.2017                                                                 

                                                                                     (A.P.S.Rajput)

                                                                                     President

 

                                                                                     (Inder Jit)

                                                                                     Member