Delhi

East Delhi

CC/49/2016

SMT.SHAKUNTLA SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC of India - Opp.Party(s)

11 Jul 2018

ORDER

            DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT of Delhi

              CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092  

 

                                                                                                   Consumer complaint no.-       49/2016

                                                                                                   Date of Institution              29/01/2016

                                                                                                   Order reserved on               11/07/2018        

                                                                                                   Date of Order                       13/07/2018                                                                                     

 

In matter of

Mrs Shakuntala Sharma, adult

w/o Sh Ganga Ram Sharma   

R/o- HN – X/1781, Gali no 18

Rajgarh Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi 110031 ……...…………….Complainant

 

                                                                    Vs

1-The Sr. Manager,

LIC of India, Branch Unit no 12D,

29-31, Aditya Mega Mall,

Nr Karkarduma Courts, Delhi 110032

 

2- The Sr. Manager,

LIC of India,

Scope Minar Complex,

Laxmi Nagar District Center, Delhi 92

 

3-The Zonal Manager,

LIC of India, Jeevan Bharti Building

124, Connaught Circus,

New Delhi 110001

 

4 The Chairman, LIC

Yogakshema Jeevan Bima Marg,

Mumbai 400021………………………………………………….…………….Opponents  

 

Complainant’s Attorney               Rajesh Kumar Sharma    

Opponent  Advocate                     Ms Mansi Bajaj, Sheepali & Ajay Kumar - Advocates

 

Quorum  Sh Sukhdev  Singh       President

                  Dr P N Tiwari                Member

                  Mrs Harpreet Kaur      Member 

                                                                                           

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member  

Brief

This complainant has been filed u/s 12 of C P Act, 1986 against OPs for alleged deficiency in their services for changing category of funds in ULIP without consent from complainant.

Facts of the case                                                                                                

Complainant purchased Future Plus policy from OP1 on 29/03/2005 vide policy no. 122738284 as proposal deposit receipt (Ex Anne.1) as a single premium for five years maturity tenure at 29/03/2010 and was satisfied with type of the fund as Growth (Ex Anne.2). It was stated that at the time of taking maturity amount with benefits after five years, complainant came to know that her fund was transferred from Growth option to Bond category without her knowledge and consent (Ex Anne. 3), thus suffered loss of Rs 12414.61, so she wrote letter to OP1 and send copies to other OPs for reversal of category (Ex Anne. 4). It was stated that after repeated reminding to OPs for 4 years, difference amount with interest Rs 16215/- were paid on 30/01/2014.

It was stated that complainant again wrote number of letters to OPs for taking compensation for harassment caused by OP1 (Ex Ann. 8&9). Later OP sent letters that penal interest would be paid (Ex Ann. 10,11,12 &13). It was also stated that due to harassment, complainant suffered from skin ailments, kidney infection, breathing difficulty etc and was under treatment regularly. (Ex.Ann.14).Complainant thereafter filed case before Mediation Centre for getting compensation, but OP1 refused to pay the penal interest (Ex Ann. 15), so filed this complaint and claimed a sum of Rs 5 lacs for mental harassment and agony from OPs jointly.

 

After receiving notice, OP submitted their written statement denying all the allegations of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP submitted that complainant had opted single premium unit linked policy for her future growth under the name of “Future Plus” on 31/03/2005 and had maturity in March 2010. As the said policy was Unit Linked meaning investment was for better future by investing the premium amount in the market by their fund manager under different options so that their customers would get maximum financial benefits by allotting units which depends upon the market value.  

In this case also, Growth Plus was changed to Bond category on 10/06/2006 on the request from complainant as OP never do any changes in the fund value, but inform to their customers about the status of financial market and value of money. Units allotted earlier were also enhanced. It was evident from the complaint under para ONE that complainant was satisfied by the progress of her fund values.

It was admitted that complainant wanted her value of the money despite her fund was in BOND still OP had paid her premium amount with interest and the same amount was accepted by the complainant. There was no deficiency in the services of OPs, hence this complaint may be dismissed.

Complainant filed her rejoinder to written statement and denied all the replies submitted by OP. It was stated that OP had intentionally changed her Growth Plus to Bond category in ULIP policy. OP had also violated right to information by not informing changing of category and due to this harassment and mental agony, complainant suffered from Skin Diseases and Kidney disease. OP had to issue the confirmation letter for changing any category when one type of best option was chosen by the complainant which was wrongly replied by OPs. She also stated that she had written to all the OPs for insulting attitude from the officials of OP1, but no action was ever taken which also caused her mental agony. Complainant submitted evidences on affidavit and stated on oath that all her evidences were true and correct and were on record. She stressed on Ex Ann. 1 to 17 as true and correct.

 

OP1 submitted their evidences on affidavit through Md. Vineeta De, working as Manager (L&HPF) with OP 3 having their office at  Jeevan Prakash, 25 KG Marg, New Delhi, 01 stated on oath that all the relevant evidences had been submitted and were on record. It was stated that complainant purchased Future Growth plan on 31/03/2005 and on 10/06/200 the fund was changed to Bond type from Growth Plus on the information of complainant as per Ex OPE1/1 and 2 and her amount with interest a sum of Rs 12414 + 3801/- was transferred in her account through NEFT on 19/01/2014, hence there was no deficiency on the part of OPs.

OP also exhibited OPE1/2 , 3 and 4 . It was stated that due to shifting of their office, records of complainant was not traceable and was communicated too, still OP had paid the amount with penal interest. Complainant had filed this case for compensation for changing fund category and non traceable records for which OP had timely replied. It was told to complainant that delay usually occurs whenever office were changed from one place to other, still accepting our deficiency in services, paid the penal interest which was accepted by the complainant without any protest and the same amount was transferred in the account.  Hence OP had no deficiency in their services.

Complainant submitted her written arguments and taken on record. Arguments were heard and after perusing the file, order was reserved.  

After scrutinizing all the facts and evidences of both the parties in reference to compensation in form of monitory gain claimed from OP due to harassment and mental agony leading to skin diseases and Kidney infection. After referring all the medical text, there was not a single finding where harassment could cause skin diseases and Kidney Infection. Hence this allegation was an afterthought of complainant, hence no explanation required. As far as compensation for deficiency in services of OP,  there was evidence from OP that non traceable of documents were due to their shifting of office, still penal interest was paid.  

Hence we come to the conclusion that this complaint has no merit and deserves to be dismissed with cost, so dismissed with cost Rs 1000/- to be deposited in the East District Legal Service Authority, Karkarduma, Delhi within 30 days from the date of order and acknowledgement be put in the record file.  

 

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Section 18 (6) of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 ( in short CPR)  and file be consigned to the Record Room under Section 20(1) of CPR.

 

 (Dr) P N Tiwari   Member                                                Mrs Harpreet Kaur  Member                                                                                        

                                      

                                           Shri  Sukhdev Singh - President