J U D G M E N T
Sri Rama Chandra Das, President - The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of C.P Act against both the Ops with prayer to direct the Ops to receive the defaulted premium dues or to pay back the total deposits with litigation cost of Rs. 5000/- and notice cost of Rs.300/- to him.
The complainant case is that on 5.3.2010 he opened a policy with Ops baring No.5887876371 and was paying the premium quarterly but last two years due to his living in a remote village the premiums could not be deposited. He approached OP No.1 to receive the premium but did not respond land the office denied to receive the same but inturn asked to furnish certain documents which is beyond the capacity of the complainant. Thereafter the OP No.1 suggested the complainant to surrender the policy and will get Rs.22,000/- but he has deposited Rs.35,000/- Then the complainant issued notice through the advocate to the Ops to receive the lapsed installments dues but the office of OP No.2 replied to deposit a sum of Rs.11,809/- as pending installments dues with interest which the complainant agree. So the complainant filed this case hoping OP may help the complainant to furnish the documents as required with prayer as mentioned above.
The Ops jointly filed the written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has his house at little distance from New Rajbati of Nayagarh. The complainant has not given the name of the remote village where he was staying for last two years. The policy of the complainant has been lapsed due to non-payment of premium since the month of Sept., 2013. The complainant never visited the office of OP No.1 nor OP No.1 ever advised to the complainant to surrender his policy and will get Rs.22,000/-. As per the rule of the corporation in case of revival of the lapsed policy within the period of limitation the party has to furnish certain documents mentioned in the schedule failing which the lapsed policy can not be revived. The complainant has to furnish those documents along with Rs.11,809/- which include interest and late fee for revival of his lapsed policy. This fact has been informed to the complainant by OP No.2 through his advocate B.B. Satapthy on 18.7.2014 in reply to Advocate notice of the complainant dated 27.6.2014. The complainant is able bodied and came alone to the Forum with his motor cycle. As soon as a policy is opened the life risk of the party is undertaken. The complainant was advised to visit OP No.1 or the Administrative office who can help him for revival of the lapsed policy but the complainant did not turn up . The complainant may go for revival or to apply to get the surrender value of his policy but in no circumstance the entire deposited amount can be paid to him. There is no deficiency in service by the Ops towards the complainant whose claim is baseless . It the duty of the complainant to furnish the required documents. The case has no merit and needs to be dismissed with cost.
From the above pleading of the parties the following issues needs for consideration to decide this case.
Whether the complaint is maintainable ?
2. Whether the lapsed policy of the complainant can be revived by the Ops without furnishing the required documents beside deposit of premium dues ?
3. Whether there was any deficiency of service from the side of the Ops towards the complainant for revival of his policy ?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief as claimed in his complaint ?
In order to prove the case the complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and relied on the documents file with the complainant. The OP No.1 for both filed the evidence on affidavit and relied on the documents filed on 21.10.2014 as per the list.
Findings
Issue No.2 & 3 : It is admitted fact that the complainant has a policy bearing No.588787637 dated 05.3.2010 which will matured on 05.3.2025 for sum assured Rs.1,00,000/- on basis of quarterly deposit of premium of Rs.2806-00 with the Ops . As per the last premium receipt filed by Ops the complainant deposited that in the month of September, 2013. He has to deposit the premium in the month of March, June, September and December as per the policy bond. The complainant filed this case on 12.9.2014 alleging that the OP No.1 did not receive the premium land OP No.2 asked to furnish some documents. As per the policy bond at the age of 57 years on 05.3.2010, the policy has been issued to the complainant. As per his matriculation certificate the date of birth is 15.5.1953. On 14.5.2013 the complainant completed 60 years of age. He defaulted in paying the premium in the month of December, 2013, March, 2014 and June, 2014. On 27.6.2014 his advocate given a notice to OP No.2 and reply was sent on 18.7.2014. The Ops filed the print out copy of encyclopedia of L.I.C of India from the internet in respect of Rule 22 and 23. The rule 22 relates to revival of policies above l61 years and above where it enumerate “ In case of Revival of polices whose age of the life assured as on date of revival(NBD) is above 60 years i.e. 61 years and above , revival of such policies can not be done at branch level. However, if policies non forfeiture regulations contain extended claim concessions clause i.e. 5 years premium paid and revival is considered within 1 year from date of FUP, and then decision of revival can be taken at BO level. Special report will be called as follows i.e “ Age nearer birth day 61 years& above and sum to be revived between 25001 to 1 lakh. The report of ECG,. TELE, BST, S, CHOLESTRAL is required ”. No documents is filed from the side of the complainant to counter above rule.
As per the above rule the OP No.1 asked the complainant so also OP No.2 sent a letter to him to furnish the above documents vide letter dated 18.7.2014. Since it is a duty of the complainant to fulfill the above condition as he has already crossed the age of 60 years his lapsed policy can not be revived . There is no deficiency of service on the either side of OP No.1 and 2 in not reviving the policy of the complainant without submission of those documents. In 1997 NCJ 166 LIC of India Vs T.L. Crasto and Another it is held “ the condition to be complied. It is the fault of the complainant who has not produced the above documents as per the instruction given by OP No.2. More ever OP No.2 instructed OP No.1 to reviv the policy of the complainant after furnishing the required documents and premiums.
Issue No.1 & 4 : Since the complainant has defaulted in furnishing the required documents as per the condition of Rule 22 there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Ops and are not liable for any compensation and they can not be directed to revive the policy of the complainant without furnishing those documents . Therefore as the condition is not fulfilled by the complainant the complaint is not maintainable and he is not entitled for any relief claimed in the complainant. Hence we order
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed on contest without cost.
The final order is prepared by us, corrected,
signed, sealed and pronounced in the open
Forum on this 31st October , 2014.
