Haryana

Ambala

CC/275/2013

SHEELA DHIMAN W/O SH SAT PAL DHIMAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

NAVNEET GUPTA

25 Jul 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:

                                                AMBALA

 

                                                Complaint Case No.      :         275 of 2013.

                                                Date of Institution                   :         23.10.2013.

                                                Date of Decision            :         25.07.2017.

 

                                                   Sheela Dhiman since deceased now represented by her Lr’s:-

 

1. Satpal Dhiman son of Shri Jyota Ram
2. Vikas Dhiman
3. Rohit Dhiman both son of Satpal Dhiman all resident of house No.1278/12,Badshahi Bagh Colony, Ambala City.

………….Complainant.

Versus

1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office Ambala City, L.I.C. Building near Vijay Cinema, Ambala City its Branch Manager.
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Jeevan Parkash Building, 489, Model Town, Karnal through its Divisional Manager.

…………Opposite Parties.

          Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

CORAM:             SH. DINA NATH ARORA, PRESIDENT

                             MS. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER

 

Present: -              Sh. Navneet Gupta, Adv, counsel for complainant.

                             Sh. P.K.Bansal, counsel for the OPs.

                  

ORDER:

 

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant (since deceased) had purchased an insurance policy bearing No.170620184 for a sum assurance of Rs.1,00,000/- from Jagadhari branch of OPs on yearly premium of Rs.6564/-  but no terms and conditions were ever explained to her.  Policy in question was transferred to Ambala city branch in the year 2004 on submission of policy bond to Yamuna Nagar Branch. The OPs had paid Rs.20,000/- to the complainant in the year 2007 and further OP No.1 had paid Rs.1,50,800/- to the complainant in the year 2012 as maturity amount of the policy in question. In the  month of May, 2012 husband of the complainant visited the Op No.1and asked for maturity amount but he was intimated that Rs.1,50,800/- was payable on maturity. The complainant had paid premium of Rs.6564/- for 20 years (Rs.1,32,000/- approximately) qua the policy in question but the OPs had paid Rs.1,70,800/- to her only. It has been further averred that since it was a money back policy, therefore, Rs.20,000/- were to be paid twice by the OPs but said amount was not paid to her till date and even the complainant could not know the whereabouts of two payments of Rs.20,000/- despite her best efforts. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service. In evidence the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C10.

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and raised preliminary objections qua maintainability, estoppal, cause of action and concealing of true facts by complainant. It is submitted that the complainant has already been paid the entire amount of policy No.170620184 which included the amount paid thrice through cheques during the intervening period @ Rs.20,000/- and last Rs.1,50,800/- on 28.09.2012. The date of commencement of the policy was 28.09.1992 and the same was issued under the term and table 75-20-20 for a sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- with yearly installment of Rs.6564/-.  It has been further submitted that the OPs had paid Rs.2,10,800/- to the complainant which included the three survival benefits of Rs.20,000/- each which were paid on 31.01.1998, 28.09.2002 and 08.09.2007 vide cheques No.198174, 16807 and 265 respectively. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs as the entire amount has already been paid to the complainant but he has filed the present complaint to put undue influence upon the OPs to extract more money. Other allegations made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  In evidence, the Ops have tendered affidavit Annexure RX and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R6.

 

3.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the case file very carefully.

4.                          The grievance of the complainant is that the OPs had not given all the benefits of the policy to her as they have not given Rs.40,000/-, which were to be given in two installments of Rs.20,000/- each being survival benefit as per policy schedule. On the other hand, the OPs have come with the plea that nothing is due   towards OPs qua the policy in question as the amount of Rs.20,000/- has already been paid to the complainant thrice on 31.01.1998, 28.09.2002 and 08.09.2007 vide cheques No.198174, 16807 and 265 respectively being survival benefit.

5.                          It is admitted by the complainant that payment of Rs.20,000/- was made in the year 2007 alongwith Rs.1,50,800/- but the version of the OPs about making the payment of Rs.20,000/- thrice to the complainant is not tenable because perusal of statement of account pertaining to the period from 09.12.1996 to 09.12.2006 reveals that an amount of Rs.20,000/- were debited to complainant vide cheque No.16807 on dated 10.10.2002 only.  Had the OPs been made the payment of Rs.20,000/- thrice to the complainant then the entry qua making the payment  of Rs.20,000/- besides the entry made on 10.10.2002 before the year 2006 must have been mentioned in the statement of account pertaining to the period from 09.12.1996  to 09.12.2006 but no such entry has been made in this statement of account which clearly falsify the stand taken by the Ops. Another strange fact which this Forum has noticed that on the back of insurance policy- Annexure C10 there is entry qua making the payment of Rs.20,000/- on 29.01.1998. The OPs have taken specifically stand that an amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid to the complainant through cheque No.198174 dated 31.01.1998 but endorsement made on the back of policy (Annexure C-10) there is not mentioned that the said payment was made through cheque. The Branch Manager of OPs vide letter dated 28.06.2017 informed about non-availability of the record being old one. It is worthwhile to mention here that as a matter of fact in reality, the insurance companies in India are functioning arbitrarily in monopolistic functions and in flimsy and they are bent upon to harass and humiliate the consumers and their act is opposite of the principle of fair play and decency and in that series, it is not even carrying that its wrongly actions are causing wrongful losses to their consumers.  In the present case instead of acting fairly the insurance company is trying to avoid from his liability by making one pretext or the other, which cannot be allowed to do so. We have come to this conclusion that the OPs have not paid Rs.20,000/- being survival benefit to the complainant which was due to her in the year 1997 i.e. on 28.09.1997.

6.                Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint deserves acceptance partly. Accordingly, we partly allow the present complaint with costs and the OPs are directed to pay Rs.20,000/- being survival benefit alongwith interest @ 9% per annum  to the complainant from the date of maturity of the policy i.e. 28.09.1997 till its realization. OPs are further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for mental agony, harassment and cost of proceedings. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced on:25.07.2017     

                                                                                                                   

 

(Pushpender Kumar)    (Anamika Gupta)                      (D.N.Arora)

Member                         Member                             President

                                                                   District Consumer Disputes                                                                                 Redressal Forum, Ambala.