Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/774

Ram Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC of India - Opp.Party(s)

Dinesh Katyal

29 May 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                                 C.C. No: 774 of 13.11.2014

                                                                     Date of Decision: 29.05.2015

Ram Kumar s/o Sh.Kanwar Chand r/o H.No.1264, Mohalla Ram Nagar, Railway Road, Jagraon District Ludhiana. 

                                                                                          … Complainant

                                                Versus

1.Life Insurance Corporation of India,(Ludhiana Division), having its branch office at Kailash Market, Near New Dana Mandi, Jagraon, Distt. Ludhiana, through its Manager.

2.Life Insurance Corporation of India, having its Division Office at Jeewan Parkash, Dugri Road, Ludhiana, through its Divisional Head/Manager..

                                                                             … Opposite parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

 

Quorum:     Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

Ms.Babita, Member.

 

Present:       Sh.Dinesh Katyal, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.V.K.Gupta, Advocate for Ops.

                        ORDER 

(R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                Present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Ram Kumar(herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Complainant’) against Life Insurance Corporation of India and others(herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to reinstate the policy of the complainant alongwith Rs.1 lakh on account of mental agony and pain due to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops alongwith litigation expenses and other benefits to the complainant.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had got the life insurance policy as provided by OP i.e. Jeewan Anand Policy, vide policy No.300404745, commenced on 10.8.2005 and was paying regular premium for the same. The said policy was availed by the complainant through the authorized agent of Ops namely Sat Pal Bembi having agency code No.00871179. At the time of issuance of the said policy, the said agent of the Ops, on behalf of Ops had taken the responsibility to collect the premium due against the said policy of the complainant as and when it will become due. Since from the date of commencement of the said policy of the complainant, the agent of Ops, used to collect the due premium from the complainant and to deposit the same with the officials of Ops and has become duty bound to collect the due premium amount from the complainant and deposit the same in the said policy account of the complainant. After the commencement of the said policy, the complainant was regularly depositing the due premium amount, through the said agent of the Ops, but for the reason best known to the Ops or their said agent, one installment of due premium could not be deposited in time, but lateron the said agent came to the complainant and had collected the amount of two due installments for the total sum of Rs.7318/-, with the assurance that he will deposit the said two installments in the said policy of the complainant. But on 27.5.2014, the said agent of the Ops, again came to the complainant and gave him the shocking news that his said insurance policy stood terminated, due to non deposition of the last due premium amount within time, but the said act on the part of the Ops was not warranted under law, as before the termination of the said policy of the complainant, the Ops have not given any intimation to the complainant and even no intimation regarding the due premium has been given to the complainant before taking such a harsh step. But the complainant never interested to surrender the said policy or to get the same terminated, rather was interested to continue with the said policy. Hence, this time, the complainant asked for the said agent of the Ops for any method to get the said policy restored, at this, the said agent instructed the complainant to get his medical done in order to restore the said policy and assured him that his policy will be restored. But after one week, the said agent again approached the complainant and claimed that as the complainant has reached to the age of 63 years, hence, the said policy could not be restored and advised the complainant to surrender the said policy, with the assurance that the complainant will receive the total amount of paid premium for a sum of Rs.61,516/- alongwith the bonus, as per the policy of the company. But this time also, the complainant felt cheated, when he got only a sum of Rs.42,088/- towards his full and final settled amount against his policy, being the surrender value and again approached the said agent of the Ops, who linger on the matter on one pretext or the other and thereafter, the complainant approached OP1 and as per the instruction of manager of OP1, the complainant got his medical checkup done, further deposited the amount of Rs.42,088/- alongwith interest of Rs.334/- and the fees of RS.100/- with the officials of Ops, meaning thereby the complainant has completed all the formalities to get his abovesaid policy restored, only as per the assurance given by the Ops that his said policy will be restored and deposited all the requisite documents on 5.8.2014, After that the Op1 assured the complainant that his policy has been restored and it is in process and also instructed the complainant that he can deposit the next due premium till 8.8.2014. On 8.8.2014, with the clear understanding that his policy has been restored, the complainant came in the office premises of the OP1 at Jagraon, in order to deposit the due premium, but thihs time also the complainant received a great shock, when he came to know that the said policy is yet to be restored and immediately approached the officials of OP1 with the request to keep his promise to restore the policy, but official of OP1 openly refused to restore the said policy of the complainant. The complainant through his counsel has got served a legal notice dated 28.10.2014 upon the Ops with the request to restore the policy but with no result. Such act and conduct of Ops claimed to be deficiency in service on their part by the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, Ops were duly served and appeared through their counsel Sh.V.K.Gupta, Advocate and filed their written reply, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable for non-joinder of the necessary party. Numerous allegations have been made in the complaint against the agent Sh.Sat Pal Bembi through whom, the complainant purchased the policy. These allegations are the alleged the verbal commitments made by the agent with the complainant and so can be replied by the agent only. Thus, the complaint cannot proceed in the absence of the agent. Reply on facts, it is admitted to the extent of taking of the life insurance policy by complainant through agent as alleged. However, it is submitted that the answering Ops are not liable for all the acts and conduct of the agent. The liability is only within the purview of the rules of the Corporation and the authorities given to the agent. As per the rules of the Corporation, the agent is not authorized to collect revenue premium. The law of contract nowhere says that the LIC agents are authorized to collect renewal premiums amount from the policy holder for onwards deposit with the LIC. It is denied that as per the law of contract, the answering Ops are liable for all the acts and conduct of the Agent. Further, it is submitted that in case of averments of the complainant are true, it only means that the agent in question has given service to the complainant, being his client, as a matter of courtesy. As per the law and as per the policy terms and conditions and the rules of the Corporation, it is the responsibility of the policy holder to deposit the premium in time and to keep his policy in force. It is submitted that it is the complainant who should know as to why he could not deposit the due premium. Obviously every prudent person can understand that LIC of India is not in a position to admit or deny the allegations made against the agent regarding receipt of Rs.7318/- from him. In case, the complainant has shown immense undesirable faith in the agent then the complainant himself is to be blamed. It is something between the complainant and the agent and the LIC of India has nothing to do with it. It is not the statutory obligation of LIC of India to give intimation of the due premium and to give intimation regarding the non payment of the due premium. Obviously LIC of India is not in a position to admit or deny these allegations. Only the agent can reply to these allegations if he had been made party in the complaint. It is submitted that it is the responsibility of the policy holder to deposit the premium in time and to keep the policy in force and as per the records of the answering Ops, the policy in question lapsed due to non deposit of the premium in time. The complainant approached branch office, Jagraon on 4.7.2014 and submitted original policy bond alongwith discharge form duly signed and witnessed by Sh.Sat Pal, agent, agency code No.871178, NEFT Form giving bank account NO.038901000008212 of Indian Overseas Bank, R.Road, Jagraon and photocopy of his bank pass book for claiming surrender value under his policy No.300404745. Further, it is submitted that after receiving all the requirements for making surrender value, branch office paid the surrender value of Rs.42,088/- to the complainant on 4.7.2014. It is further submitted that after one month, the policy holder re-deposited the amount of surrender value and requested for reinstatement of his policy. However, as per the CO, Circular No.CO/CRM/766/23 dated 9.12.2013, the policy in question which was issued under table No.149, cannot be reinstated as it is a high risk plan and so the amount deposited by the policy holder i.e. the complainant was refunded to him. The answering Ops have not committed any illegal/unjust etc and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Ops. At the end, denying all other allegations of the complaint being wrong and incorrect, answering OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                Both the parties adduced their evidence by way of tendering affidavits alongwith documents.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant has filed the written arguments, in which, it is submitted that the complainant got the insurance policy Jeewan Anand commenced on 10.8.2005 and regularly paid the due premium. As agent of Ops did not deposit the due installment, the policy terminated and before termination, no intimation was given. Complainant remained interested to continue with his policy. But due to regular pressure for Ops and to false assurance, the complainant had to surrender the policy and lateron, OPs assured the complainant to reinstate the policy and as per demand of Ops, the complainant deposited Rs.42,088/- with Ops in policy alongwith interest Rs.334/- for interest over said amount and Rs.100/- for renewal fee against proper receipts issued under policy number in question. Further, relied upon documents produced by the complainant in his evidence.

7.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops has contended that the present complaint is not maintainable for non-joinder of the necessary party as Sh.Satpal Bembi, who is the agent of OP, from whom the complainant had purchased the policy, has not been impleaded the party to the present complaint and numerous allegations have been made in the complaint against the said agent which can only be replied by the said agent only and thus, the complaint cannot proceed in the absence of the said agent. Further, it has been contended that the law of contract nowhere says that the LIC agents are authorized to collect renewal premiums amount from the policy holder for onwards deposit with the LIC. As per the law and as per the policy terms and conditions and the rules of the Corporation, it is the responsibility of the policy holder to deposit the premium in time and to keep his policy in force. However, it is the complainant who should know as to why he could not deposit the due premium and it is the responsibility of the policy holder to deposit the premium in time and to keep the policy in force and as per the records of the Ops, the policy in question lapsed due to non deposit of the premium in time. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

8.                We have gone through the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant and have also considered the rival contention of the learned counsel for the Ops and have also perused the record on the file very carefully.

9.                Perusal of the record reveals that it is an undisputed fact between the parties that earlier, the complainant had got the life insurance policy in question i.e.Jeewan Anand Policy having policy No.300404745 which was commenced on 10.8.2005 on payment of regular premium and the said policy was purchased by the complainant from the Ops through their agent Sh.Sat Pal Bembi. Further, it is an undisputed fact on record that one installment of premium qua the abovesaid policy could not be deposited in time and as per the allegations of the complainant that lateron, Sh.Sat Pal Bembi, agent of Ops had come to the complainant and had  collected the amount of two installments for the total sum of Rs.7318/-. But lateron the complainant came to know that the aforesaid policy has been terminated due to non-payment of the last due premium amount within time. It is further an undisputed fact that the complainant had surrendered the policy in question and had received the amount of Rs.42,088/- towards the full and final settlement of the amount against the abovesaid policy being surrender value.

10.              Further, it is an undisputed fact on record that thereafter, the complainant had again approached with the Ops and had deposited a sum of Rs.42,088/- alongwith interest of Rs.334/- and fees of Rs.100/- and made request for revival of the policy. However, the said amount was also returned by the Ops as the rules of Corporation   not permitted to the LIC to restore/revive the policy when the surrender value of the policy had already refunded to the complainant.

11.              During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has not placed on record any such rules or regulations, under which, the policy can be restored by the Ops after receiving the surrender value of the policy nor the complainant has adduced any such evidence by producing on record any documents, from which, it could be presumed that still at this stage, the policy can be revived by the Ops after charging any penalty or fee etc. So, under these circumstances, it can be presumed that the complainant himself has failed to prove on record his allegations levelled in the complaint against the Ops.

12.               In view of the above discussion, we hereby dismiss the complaint of the complainant being devoid of any merit. Copy of this order be made available to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due completion.

 

                 (Babita)                                (R.L.Ahuja)

                                  Member                                          President 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:29.05.2015

Gurpreet Sharma