Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/279

Satpal Puri - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Rai

09 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 279 dated 02.11.2020.                                                        Date of decision: 09.07.2024. 

 

Sh. Satpal Puri aged 66 years Sh. Piare Lal, R/o. B-25/42, St. No.4, Santokh Nagar, Shiv Puri, Ludhiana.

                                                                                      ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. L.I.C. of India, Unit No.4, Dhyan Singh Complex, Near Bus Stand, Ludhiana, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
2. Bank of Baroda, Branch Nehru Garden Road, Jalandhar, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.                                                                                                                             …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Amit Rai, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Rajeev Abhi, Advocate.

For OP2                         :         Sh. S.K. Dhir, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that one Rajesh Kanda, an agent/representative of OP1, an insurance company, met the complainant for LIC Plan Jivan Tarun and on 02.02.2016, the complainant took Life Insurance Policy No.302728926 namely Jiwan Tarun in name of his grand-daughter Shaina Puri for a sum assured of Rs.10,00,000/-by paying a premium of Rs.10,133.07 PM. According to the complainant, he is 8^th class pass and cannot read or write English but he as per the instructions of Rajesh Kanda and believing on OP1 Company took the policy for better future of his grand-daughter but he never disclosed that the policy PWB termination period is 02.02.2029 whereas he asked the complainant to pay for 5 years only. He also took many signatures of the complainant and his son on various forms but never came for any help thereafter. The complainant paid the premium to OP1 regularly and approached OP1 to start premium through ECS (Electronic Clearance Service) to avoid any inconvenience in old age. On the request of the complainant to get premium through ECS per month, OP1 took his signatures on various papers and assured to deduct the future premiums through ECS from his savings account No.14621000004909 with OP2 Bank of Baroda. The premium through ECS was deducted till November 2018 but hereafter, no premium was credited into account of policy due to negligence of the OPs. The complainant kept huge bank balance to honour the ECS mandate and to avoid any inconvenience. The complainant stated that he never stopped the ECS and even he was not in knowledge that the premium has been stopped but in starting of year 2019, he shocked to know that premium was not credited in the policy. He requested OP1 to give reason but OP1 did not give any response except that ECS was stopped by OP2. Even OP1 demanded late payment charges of premium without any fault of the complainant. Rather it was the duty of OP1 to intimate complainant about non-payment of premium. The complainant further stated that he visited OP2 bank but they did not assist him rather they wrote that his account belongs to Jalandhar branch and they cannot do anything and did not solve the problem of the complainant. The complainant sent legal notice dated 04.08.2020 to the OPs but OPs made a false reply. The complainant claimed to have suffered mental pain, harassment and mental torture due to act of the OPs. In the end, the complainant prayed for issuing direction to OP1 to pay the total policy amount with interest along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-. The complainant also prayed for issuing direction to OP2 to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.

2.                 Upon notice, OP1 appeared and filed written statement and assailed the complaint by taking preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability; lack of jurisdiction; the complainant being stopped by his own act and conduct; concealment of material facts; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint etc. OP1 stated that since the policy No.302728926 was taken by Sh. Deepak Puri (Proposer) Plan No.834/13/08 and sum insured of Rs.10,00,000/- in favor of Ms Shaina Puri (minor life assured) on 02.02.2016 under auto debit facility (ECS mode) from Bank of Baroda, account No.1462010004909 and registered mobile No.98725-31233 of account holder, which was registered with LIC which is in the name of Shri Deepak Puri (Proposer). The premium of the aforesaid policy was deducted on regular basis since commencement of policy but on 07.11.2018 the invoice raised by LIC of India was dishonored by OP2 Bank of Baroda citing the reason 'MISC-A/C BLOCKED OR FROZEN'. An auto generated SMS was sent to the registered mobile number by LIC of India on receiving the dishonored intimation from the OP2 bank but it seems that the message was over-sighted by Sh. Deepak Puri for the reasons best known to him/due to unknown reason. OP2 further stated that due to the aforesaid reason of non-payment of premium/non-receipt of premium, the aforesaid policy was suspended. The suspended policy under ECS mode can be revived like any other policy after submitting the relevant form (DGH) and Medical Report in case of PWB Rider. Once the premium is paid for the suspended period along with interest the auto debit will start from the attached account. In this case revival process was not initiated at the proposer's end till date. Even the ECS can be stopped only after revival of policy and all dues are being paid and also the condition of policy payment cycle falls under stipulated period i.e. quarterly, half yearly or annually. Sh. Deepak Puri is the only authorized person to revive the suspended policy being the proposer as per terms and conditions of the policy and not Sh. Sat Pal Puri from whose account the premium is deducted on monthly basis. OP2 further stated that Sh. Deepak Puri is Postgraduate and runs a Tour and Travel Agency.  It is OP2 Bank of Baroda, Ludhiana Branch which had not cooperated with complainant properly as account belongs to other city but LIC of India i.e. OP1 has never refused or is reluctant to offer services to the best of their ability as per procedure and practice applicable to the suspended aforesaid policies under ECS mode. Notice dated 04.08.2020 was served by the complainant was duly replied by vide reply 22.08.2020 whereby the complainant was duly informed to submit relevant form DHB, medical report in case of PWB rider, payment of premium for the suspended period along with interest and all other dues, so that the suspended policy be revived. As such, no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practices has been adopted by OP1 nor any cheating has been done with the complainant.

Even the allegations and averments of cheating in the proceedings are summary in nature and as such, elaborate evidence both oral and documentary is required and the matter can be adjudicated by the civil court of competent jurisdiction and not by this Commission in a summary manner.

                   On merits, OP1 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. OP1 has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                OP2 filed separate written statement and assailed the complaint by taking preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability, the complaint is an abuse of process of law; the complaint has been field to harass, malign and extort money; concealment of facts; lack of jurisdiction etc. OP2 stated that the complainant has not provided any cogent evidence before this Commission to establish that he approached it to get his account defreezed prior to 12.12.2019. Moreover, the account of the complainant was freezed initially in the year 2013, to be precise on 22.02.2013 and thereafter same was unfreezed on 29.05.2013 for want of KYC (No Your Client). OP2 further stated that the account of the complainant was freezed and unfreezed earlier also for want of compliance for want of KYC. As and when the complainant approached OP2 that is 12.12.2019, OP2 unfreezed the account of complainant on 13.12.2019 i.e. very next day the account was made operative. Even OP2 never received any ECS request pertaining to savings account no. 14621000004909 standing in the name of the complainant from OP1 which is evident from the statement of the account that after October 2018 there has been no ECS request from OP1 till date. According to OP2, it is not responsible for any deficiency in service as it duly informed the complainant via SMS from time to time about the freezing of the account of the complainant. Moreover, the matter in issue is of complex nature which \can be adjudicated in civil court by leading cogent evidence and same cannot be decided in summary proceedings.

                   On merits, OP2 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. OP2 has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated the averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record documents Ex. C1 is the copy of Jeevan Tarun policy, Ex. C2 is the copy of revival letter, Ex. C3 is the copy of statement dated 08.01.2020, Ex. C4 is the copy of revival quotation, Ex. C5 is the copy of status report of policy, Ex. C6 to Ex. C8 are the copies of passbook of Bank of Baroda, Ex. C9 is the copy of legal notice dated 04.08.2020, Ex. C10 is the copy of reply dated 10.09.2020 of OP2, Ex. C11 is the copy of reply dated 22.08.2020 of OP1and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for OP1 tendered affidavit  Ex. RA of Sh. K.K. Arora, Manager (Legal H&F) of OP1 along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy of status report of policy, Ex. R2 is the copy of NACH Master Particulars, Ex. R3 is the copy of status report of policy, Ex. R4 is the copy of Form-A ESC Mandate Form, Ex. R5 is the copy of cheque dated 29.02.2016, Ex. R6 is the copy of Medical Examiner’s Confidential Report dated 08.03.2016, Ex. R7 is the copy of Proposal Review Slip dated 15.03.2016, Ex. R8 is the copy of Juvenile FMR, Ex. R9 is the copy of Jeevan Tarun policy, Ex. R10 is the copy of proposal for insurance on own life, Ex. R11 is the copy of Proposal for insurance on the life of another person and closed the evidence. 

                   OP1 filed application for leading additional evidence, which was allowed vide order dated 12.09.2023. In additional evidence, OP1 tendered affidavit Ex. RB of Sh. Sant Ram, Manager (L&HPF) of OP1 along with documents Ex. R12 is the copy of NACH Enquiry of Single Policy, Ex. R13 is the copy of Email dated 01.06.2022, Ex. R14 is the copy of Form-A: ECS Mandate Form and closed the additional evidence.

                   The counsel for OP2 tendered affidavit Ex. RA2 of Sh. Shailesh Pandey, Branch Head cum Constituted Power of Attorney Holder of OP2 along with documents Ex. A is the copy of General Power of Attorney, Ex. B is the copy of account statement w.e.f. 02.02.2016 to 10.03.2021, Ex. C is the copy of letter of complainant for account transfer, Ex. D is the copy of request for unfreeze account of the complainant, Ex. E is the copy of Circular dated 17.09.2018 and closed the evidence.

                   OP2 also filed application for leading additional evidence, which was allowed vide order dated 07.10.2023. In additional evidence, OP2 tendered affidavit Ex. RB/2 of Sh. Shailesh Pandey, Branch Head of OP2 along with documents i.e. Ex. F is the copy of power of attorney, Ex. G is the copy of certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act and closed the additional evidence.  

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written statements along with affidavits and documents produced on record by both the parties. We have also gone through written arguments submitted by OP2.

7.                At the very outset, the point of consideration arises whether the complainant is a Consumer within meaning of Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act. Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides:-

       “Consumer” means any person who:-

(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the consumer means a person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii)hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and include any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.”

Explanation. -For the purposes of this clause, -

(a) the expression "commercial purpose " does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;

 (b) the expressions "buys any goods " and "hires or avails any services " includes offline or online transactions through electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing;

                   Although statutory definition of “Consumer” is wide and is having efficacious coverage but each case has to be determined on the basis of peculiar facts and circumstances. A bare reading of this section postulates that a Consumer must hire or avail service for consideration which could be paid or promise or partly paid or partly promised etc.

8.                Jeevan Tarun policy No.302728926 Ex. C1 shows that the policy was to be commenced from 02.02.2016 and was to be matured on 02.02.2029. Further the sum assured of the policy was Rs.10,00,000/- having monthly premium of Rs.10,133.07. Perusal of policy shows that at the time of issuance of the policy, Shaina Puri was minor having 12 years of age and the proposer was her father namely Deepak Puri. Till filing of the complaint, she continued to be minor and she attained the majority during the proceedings of this complaint. The complainant should have been filed by Shaina Puri through her legal and natural guardian and proposer of policy. The complainant, Satpal Puri, in his personal capacity has no locus standi or cause of action to maintain the complaint on behalf of Shaina Puri. As such, the complainant is not a Consumer as per definition of Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is not maintainable and same deserves dismissal.

9.                At the fag end of arguments, the complainant showed inclination for renewal of the policy by Shaina Puri. It is observed that in case Shaina Puri approaches OP1 for renewal of her lapsed policy and pays the applicable premium and fees within 30 days from the date of passing of this order, then OP1 would be at liberty to renew the same in terms of policy in question.

10.               As a result of above discussion, the complaint is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.        

11.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

 

(Monika Bhagat)                              (Sanjeev Batra)               Member                                         President  

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:09.07.2024.

Gobind Ram.