Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/19/436

B.L.JONWAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC - Opp.Party(s)

06 Jul 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

                   PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL                         

                                                                         

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 436 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 29.01.2019 passed in C.C.No.793/2015 by the District Commission, Bhopal-1)

 

B. L. JAUNWAR,

S/O LATE SHRI RAMDAYAL JONWAAR,

R/O EWS-108, H-SECTOR,

AYODHYA NAGAR, BHOPAL (M.P.)                                                                …          APPELLANT.

 

Versus

                 

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION

OF INDIA, BRANCH NO.1-BERASIA ROAD,

BHOPAL THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER.                                                     …         RESPONDENT.                                    

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

           HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :  MEMBER

         

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Appellant in person.

           Shri Deepesh Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent.    

 

                                                         O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 06.07.2023)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

 

                         This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) is directed against the order dated 29.01.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal-1 (For short

‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.793/2015 whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed.

 2.               Briefly put, facts of the case as narrated by the appellant are that he had obtained ‘Ashadeep’ policy no. 20000544 through agent from the opposite party/respondent-LIC. The duration of the policy was 20 years.

-2-

Rs.632/- was the quarterly premium and Rs.2453/- was the annual premium under the said policy. The sum assured under the said policy was Rs.50,000/-.  It is alleged that the agent at the time of taking the policy had assured that the maturity amount under the said policy would be three times of the sum assured i.e. Rs.1,50,000/-. The appellant however alleged that he was paid only Rs.1,07,400/- as maturity amount on 17.01.2014 which is against the offer of the LIC. The appellant also alleged that the LIC deducted Rs.18.40/- in excess against the loan obtained over the subject policy.  The appellant further alleged that he was entitled for additional bonus after completion of 50 years of the policy, which is for more than Rs.1,50,000/- but the LIC failed to comply with the obligation on its part. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of LIC, the appellant approached the District Commission, seeking relief.

3.                The opposite party/respondent-LIC in its reply before the District Commission denied the allegations made in the complaint and submitted that the sum assured has been paid to the appellant as per terms and conditions of the policy.  It is further submitted that Rs.18.40/- were deducted on account of less payment of premium amount by the appellant.  It is denied by the LIC that there has been any deficiency in service on its part.

4.                Heard. Perused the record.

-3-

5.                Appellant, who appears in person argued that he had sent DD for premium amount on 24.12.2003 but for delayed payment on one occasion, the LIC deducted Rs.18.40/-, further also, repeatedly, without explaining any reason for it. He further argued that the he was not paid bonus amount as was promised to him. The LIC had also failed to answer the queries of the appellant, when he had approached through Right to Information Act. He argued that the appellant has suffered immensely on financial account since he was not paid maturity amount as per assurance given by the agent of the LIC. He thus argued that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

6.                Learned counsel for the respondent-LIC argued that in the impugned order, it has rightly been held by the District Commission that the maturity amount was paid to the appellant as per terms and conditions of the policy. The bonus amount was also paid to the appellant, in accordance with the offer.  There has been no negligence or deficiency in service on part of the respondent-LIC.

7.                Upon careful perusal of the impugned order and the record we observe that the District Commission while deciding the issue involved in the matter has mentioned that the amount of Rs.1,07,400/- has been paid to the appellant in accordance with the policy issued to him.  For this purpose, the District Commission has relied on the document C-1 dated

 

-4-

19.08.2013, from perusal of which it is not clear that the amount has been paid to the appellant as per specifications mentioned in the policy.  The District Commission has not discussed the policy conditions before holding that the appellant has rightly been paid the maturity amount.  The District Commission in the impugned order has not given any finding regarding deduction of Rs.18.40/- as has been alleged by the appellant.

8.                In view of the aforesaid discrepancy, we are of a considered opinion that the case deserves to be remanded back to the District Commission for decision afresh. The District Commission, if it deems fit, may direct for joinder of necessary parties to the matter.

9.                Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 08.08.2023.

10.              Record of the case be sent at the earliest to the District Commission.

11.              All the contentions of the parties are kept open. Parties may file additional evidence in support of their respective contentions, as and when directed by the District Commission, within the time specified for the same.

12.              The District Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law and decide the case as expeditiously as possible.

-5-

13.              With the aforesaid observations, this appeal stands disposed of.  However, no order as to costs.

 

         (JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR)       (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                      

                           PRESIDENT                                       MEMBER