Delhi

North

CC/421/2022

OM SINGH PUNIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

25 Nov 2022

ORDER

Consumer Complaint No. 421 of 2022

In the matter of

Om Singh Punia

Chamber No. K-88 (First Floor)

Near Gate No. 2, Tis Hazari Court Complex

Delhi-110054                                                            …       Complainant

vs

Life Insurance Corporation of India

(Through its Branch Manager)

3909-3912, Dafrien Bridge

Hamilton Road, Mori Gate

Delhi- 110006                                                 …       Opposite party No. 1

 

Sh. Vinod Kumar Singh

(Member of Distinguished Club of Agents)

LIC of India, 99-GShankar Nagar Chowk

Nagpur (Mah) 440010

Also at:

Flat No. A-2, S-1, Govind Gourkhede Complex

Seminary Hills

Nagpur (Mah) 4040006                                              …       Opposite Party No. 2

 

ORDER

25/11/2022

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

By way of this complaint, the Complainant herein has alleged that Life Insurance Corporation of India (OP-1) has not made the payment of maturity amount as assured by the agent of the OP-1 namely Shri Vinod Kumar Singh (OP-2) when the Complainant purchased the policy nos. 974xxx736 (Jeevan Chaya) and 974xxx743 (Jeevan Mitra) from Nagpur Branch of the OP-1. It is also stated by Ld. Advocate for the Complainant that the said policy was subsequently transferred to Mori Gate Branch of OP-1, which has made the final payment of the maturity amount to the Complainant.

The Complainant has alleged that at the time of purchase of these policies in the year 2003, OP-2 has given an assurance that Jeevan Chaya policy would give the maturity payment of Rs. 2,10,400/- and Jeevan Mitra Policy will give maturity payment 2,12,200/- in 2021. However, on maturity, final amounts paid maturity of these policies were Rs. 1,80,100/- and Rs. 1,83,600/- respectively, which are much below the assured maturity amounts. In support of the claim of the Complainant, the copy of the hand-written and computer printed calculation sheets on the letter head of OP-2 has been filed. Ld. Advocate for Complainant argues that in view of the written assurance of the OP-2, the OP-1 was mandated to make the payment of assured maturity benefit. The deficient payment of the maturity amount of both these policies is the deficiency of service, which has been alleged by the Complainant in this complaint.

We have perused the document and have also gone through the pleadings. The Complainant has filed the calculation sheets allegedly provided by OP-2. These calculations sheets are not signed by OP-2 and the details of the OP-2 are also not indicated on the policies as the agent of OP-1. Therefore, none of the documents so filed by the Complainant can establish that OP-2 was the agent of OP-1 and also the fact that the policies were sold by OP-2 to the Complainant.

Further, it is also to be noted that the printed calculation sheets (page 20 and 21 of the complaint) indicate that these quotations were printed on 29/11/2003, but the policy certificates so annexed at page no. 11 and 15 suggest that the proposal for these policies were filed on 22/10/2003 and the policy commenced from an earlier date i.e. 10/09/2003. The policy certificates were also issued on 17/11/2003, which is apparent from the date stamp affixed on these policies. As these calculations post-dates the date of proposals and policy issuance date (of both policies), we cannot assume that such calculation is with respect to policies in question. For assuming that Complainant made an informed decision to purchase these policies based on the calculation/ quotation provided by the OP-2, the calculation/ quotation sheets must pre-date the date of proposal for the policy.

The hand written calculation sheet does not have any date on it and it also does not identify Complainant as proposed insured person. Only age is shown to make the calculation. However as this document is not dated, we cannot assume that this hand written calculation was made for the Complainant only.

We have also noted that page nos. 20 and 21 are part of the same document, which is apparent from the facts that (i) both these pages have the heading “Quotation- Multi Plan” and (ii) page 21 is page numbered as page “2” at the time of printing. As these two pages constitute same document, the disclaimer printed at the end of the document i.e. second page of the document is to be read for both the policies. The Disclaimer reads as under:

“Disclaimer: It may be noted that above calculations are based on the assumption that corporation will continuously offer a simple reversionary bonus per thousand sum assured per annum till date of maturity if applicable. However, bonus declared shall vary depending upon the performance of the corporation and also general interest rates. It is assumed that rebate under section 88 will continue till maturity.”

Even if we assume that the calculations as provided in the quotations of the OP-2 are with respect to the Complainant’s policies, the same cannot be read as guaranteed maturity benefits as the OP-2 has duly given the disclaimer regarding assumptions and conditions for making such calculations.

In view of the above, we are not in agreement with the allegations made by the Complainant and we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service by OP-1 and OP-2 respectively while selling these policies and also in making final payment of these policies. As a result, we do not find any merit in the complaint. Hence we dismiss this complaint at admission stage itself.

Copy of the order be supplied to parties in accordance with rules. Thereafter file be consigned to the record room.