Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1135/2015

Naresh Parcha - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S.Nandpuri

26 Jul 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                          

                                                                  Complaint no. 1135                                                                                               

                                                                   Instituted on:  23.09.2015

                                                                   Decided on:    26.07.2016

 

Naresh Parcha wife of Late Mohan Kumar Parcha, resident of House No.324, Street No.2, Dashmesh Nagar, Patiala Road, Sangrur.

                                               …. Complainant

                                Versus

1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Railway Chowk, Branch Sangrur through its Chief Manager.
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Divisional Manager.   

                                          ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT    :       Shri G.S.Nandpuri,  Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES       :       Shri Amit Goyal, Advocate

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Naresh Parcha, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on the advice of official of OPs  she  invested Rs.5,00,000/-  in LIC Jeevan  Akshya-VI.  The officials of the OPs assured the complainant that  she will get the monthly  income  in this policy and  she can withdraw the invested amount as and when  she required in future.  The complainant is widow lady and she had no other source of income.  The complainant fixed the marriage of her daughter for 30.08.2015 and due to that the complainant made an application for withdrawing the invested amount to OP No.1 who forwarded the same to OP No.2 along with recommendation i.e. " surrender allowed"  but the OP No.2 refused to make the payment of the policy saying that  said policy  cannot be surrendered, as per letter dated 20.08.2015.  The OP No.1 now told the complainant that said amount will be paid  to the LRs  of the complainant after the death of complainant.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- ,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.20000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the Ops,  preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability, cause of action  and suppression of material facts have been taken up. On merits,  it has been stated that the complainant obtained  for the policy under Jeeva Akshya  plan VI  under which an amount of Rs.8900/-  is payable yearly to the complainant.   Further as per terms and conditions of the  of the policy it has been specifically mentioned that " the policy shall  not acquire any surrender value"  thus when surrender of policy is not allowed  then the question of any assurance  given to the complainant does not  arise at all.   Though the complainant  made an application which was forwarded  to the claims  department of OPs but  same was rightly denied vide letter dated 20.08.2015. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OPs/1 to Ex.OPs/3 and closed evidence.

4.             The version of the complainant is that  she invested a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in the LIC Jeevan Akshya -VI policy  of the Ops with the premise that she will get monthly interest income and she can withdraw the amount whenever  she required. The complainant fixed the marriage of her daughter  and requested  for the withdrawal by way of surrender value but the OP No.2 refused to accept the request though the OP No.1 had allowed the surrender  on the request letter of the complainant. Due to this act of the Ops the complainant had to postpone the marriage of her daughter.

5.             In reply the Ops have submitted that  under the Jeevan Akshya Plan VI for the cash price  of Rs.5,00,000/-  an amount of Rs.8900/- is  payable yearly to the complainant.  Further as per the conditions of the policy it  has been specifically mentioned  that " the policy shall  not acquire  any surrender value and  according to the terms  and conditions  of the policy the OPs have not allowed the surrender of the policy.

6.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the documents placed on record we find that as per the policy document in question  which is Ex.C-4 on record it has been mentioned against the surrender"  the policy  shall not acquire any surrender value" and as per this clause  the OPs have submitted that  the request  of the complainant was declined. But the complainant has also placed on record two  similar  policy documents of some other policy holder and  the same are Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7 on record. On the perusal of these two  documents we find that in these policies  also it has been mentioned that " the policy shall not acquire  any surrender value" But then the document Ex.C-8  shows that  the surrender value has been paid in these two policies. It  means that the condition of surrender does not have any sanctity and it can be changed at the will of the OPs.

7.             The OPs have also placed on record letter dated 01.12.2012 Ex.OPs/2  and the same is an internal circular  letter with regard  to the surrender value of the policies but we find that there is no mention  of these guidelines on the policy document of the complainant which is Ex.C-4. If this circular was so important then it could have found a place either on the policy document or could have been a part of the policy in question but the OPs have not led any such evidence on record.

8.             We have also gone through the document Ex.C-2 which is a request letter  of the complainant for the surrender of the policy and we find that the same has been allowed  by the Chief Manager and the official stamp  has also been  affixed on this document. so,  one of the OPs who had issued the policy has  mentioned on the letter" surrender  allowed" and  had affixed his  official  stamp on it with his signature then there is no cause  for the OPs to refuse the surrender  of the policy as a later stage. This document Ex.C-2  fully corroborates the version of the complainant that at the time of  obtaining the policy  it was also assured that she could surrender the policy.

9.             So, from the facts mentioned above, we find that the OPs have wrongly declined the request  of the complainant for  the surrender value  of the policy and as such the OPs  are not only deficient in service but also  have indulged in unfair trade practice  and as such we allow the complaint and we order that the complainant be paid the surrender value of the policy in question. We further order the OPs to pay a consolidated sum of Rs.20,000/-  being the amount  of mental tension, agony and litigation expenses.   

10.           This order of ours  shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                     

                Announced

                July 26, 2016

 

 

 

  ( Sarita Garg)    ( K.C.Sharma)          (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                        Member          Member                                President

 

 

 

 

 

BBS/-