BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.104/2008 Order dated this the 19th day of December 2008 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.Nanjundaswamy, R/o Annapoorna Fancy Corner, V.V.Road, Mandya City. (By Sri.M.S.Sanjeev Kumar., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S 1. The Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Bannimantapa, B.M.Road, Mysore. 2. The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Bandigowda Layout, Mandya City. 3. The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Ballary, Ballary District. (By Sri.S.Sudarshan., Advocate) Date of complaint 18.10.2008 Date of service of notice to Opposite parties 12.11.2008 Date of order 19.12.2008 Total Period 1 Month & 7 Days Result The complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite parties for settlement of Insurance claim of Rs.10,000/- with bonus and also damages of Rs.20,000/- alleging deficiency in service. 2. The case of the complainant is that he obtained a insurance policy on 09.02.1968 from the Opposite party for Rs.10,000/- in policy No.40093514 under Plan 28 Assurance. He was paying the premium quarterly at the rate of Rs.72-18. The complainant has paid last premium amount on 09.11.2007. The said policy matured on 09.02.2008. After that date, the complainant approached Opposite party Office and requested, but the Opposite parties postponed to settle the claim and at last the 2nd Opposite party sent a letter stating that the policy amount will be payable on attaining the age of 80 years. But the terms and conditions of the policy are otherwise. In spite of legal notice dated 25.07.2008, Opposite party has not settled the claim and therefore, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. 3. The Opposite party has filed version admitting the policy obtained by the complainant. It is contended that as per the conditions of the policy, the premium payment ceases on attaining the age of 70 years. However, the maturity claim becomes payable only on the life assured attaining the age of 80 years or on death whichever is earlier. The Plan 28 policy is a whole life policy. This was informed to the complainant on 04.07.2008 and 10.10.2008. The legal notice was suitably replied, the complainant has not exercised the option of converting the whole life policy in to an endowment policy after 5 years from the date of commencement of the policy, in spite of letters dated 18.02.1972 and 07.06.1974. There is no cause of action and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. 4. During trail, the complainant has filed affidavit and produced the documents Ex.C.1 to C.6. On behalf of the Opposite parties, a witness affidavit is filed and Ex.R.1 to R.3 are produced. 5. We have heard both sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1) Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service by not settling the insurance claim? 2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the insurance amount with bonus? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. The undisputed facts are that the complainant obtained the insurance policy from the Opposite party for Rs.10,000/- as per Ex.C.4 commencing from 09.02.1968. The last premium is paid on 09.11.2007 as per Ex.C.2 and as per this, the complainant need not pay any further premium. It is admitted that the Opposite party has sent letter Ex.C.3 on 04.07.2008 to the complainant, stating that the maturity claim is payable on attaining the age of 80 years. Thereafter, the complainant has issued legal notice Ex.C.1 on 25.07.2008 and Opposite party has sent reply as per Ex.C.6. 9. Now the contention of the complainant is that the policy has matured on 09.02.2008, in spite of it, Opposite party has not settled the claim. But the contention of the Opposite party is that the policy obtained by the complainant is whole life policy and the terms are specific and it is payable only on the death of the life assured, because the complainant has not exercised the option to convert the whole life policy into an endowment policy within 5 years from the date of commencement of the policy and as per the latest circular of the corporation, the policy amount in respect of whole life policy is payable on attaining the age of 80 years by the life assured or on completion of 40 years from the date of commencement of the policy whichever is later. 10. Now if we peruse the policy Ex.C.4, it is very clear that it is a convertible whole life insurance policy with profits and the sum assured is payable on the death of the life assured and there is specific provision that on written request of the proposer made at the end of 5 years from the date of commencement of the policy, the Corporation will convert the policy into an Endowment Assurance Policy with profits at the rate and terms specified in the convertible whole life assurance scheme of the corporations prospectus or tables of rates in force on the date of the policy. On conversion into an endowment assurance the vested bonus additions will be altered. Admittedly the complainant has not exercised the option to convert the while life policy into an endowment policy, so that he can claim the insurance amount after attaining the maturity date. In fact in the policy there is no maturity date at all. The assured amount is payable on the death of the life insured. In fact as per Opposite party contention it has sent Ex.R.1 and R.2 letter to the complainant to exercise the option. As per Ex.R.3, latest circular of the Opposite party Insurance Company, the assured amount in respect of whole life policy is payable on attainment of 80 years of age by the assured. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove that the policy has matured on 09.02.2008. Admittedly the complainant has not attained the age of 80 years, because his date of birth is 10.08.1937. 11. It is contended that in Ex.C.2, the date is mentioned as 09.02.2008, but it is not a date of maturity, viewed from any angle. Actually the next quarterly premium has to be paid on 09.02.2008, since the last premium payment is fixed as 09.11.2007 in the policy at the end of Ex.C.2, the next premium due is shown as 0 . Under these circumstances, the insurance policy has not matured and the claim of the complainant is premature and hence the Opposite party has properly informed by sending letter Ex.C.3 and the reply Ex.C.6. Therefore, Opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and the complainant is not entitled to relief sought for. 12. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 19th day of December 2008). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
