BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.       

                                                              Consumer Complaint no. 12 of 2015                                                                                           Date of Institution         :    14.1.2015                                                                          

                                                                   Date of Decision   :    06.12.2016.

Smt. Lilawati wife of Sh. Rajender Nain son of Sh. Het Ram Nain, resident of VPO Kharia, District Sirsa.      

                                                                                      ….Complainant.

          Versus.

1.     Life Insurance Company, LIC Building, near Spar Banquet, Sirsa through its Manager/ authorized signatory.

2.    Bhim Sain Mittal son of Sh. Sita Ram Mittal, C/o Sita Ram & sons, opp. Laxmi Sweets, behind LIC Building, near Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa (authorized Agent of LIC-op no.1.)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             ….Opposite parties.

                   Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:                 SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT

                                       SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……MEMBER.   

Present:       Sh. Deepak Monga,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. K.K.Relan,  Advocate for opposite party No.1.

                   Sh. Anjani Kumar Gupta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.

ORDER

                   Complainant’s case in brief, is that opposite party no.2 approached the complainant in the month of August, 2010 and allured her regarding the term plan insurance and procured her signatures on several documents and also took ID proof and proof of date of birth etc. for the purpose of insurance plan and complainant also paid an amount of Rs.31,000/- to op no.1. The ops assured the complainant that within a few days the policy bond would be issued. But the ops unfairly invested the money of complainant in some invest assure plan i.e. LIC Market Plus-I Plan (share market plans), whereas complainant did not intend to purchase said plan. The complainant approached the ops and requested several times to admit her claim but they flatly refused to admit her claim. She also got issued legal notice upon ops but to no effect. Hence, this complaint for a direction to ops to return the amount of Rs.31,000/- and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement submitting therein that the policy was purchased by complainant with her free will. The policy and FPR was issued on 31.8.2010 by hand to the policy holder and with all detail print on policy bond. If the complainant was not satisfied with the policy then it could be got cancelled within 15 days from the date of receipt of policy. Policy was issued under Ulip scheme and this is fact that Ulip policy is based on market risk. Remaining contents of complaint have been denied.

3.                Op no.2 in his written statement while denying the allegations of complainant has submitted that the complainant herself approached op no.2 in the month of August, 2010 for the purchase of Ulip Plan and he made understand her that as per the terms and conditions of plan, there will be investment in the share market for ten years and she can withdraw the amount of investment after three years as per the rate of share market. After understanding the terms and conditions of Ulip plan, she purchased the plan and op no.1 issued the policy No.1786188817 to her.

4.                The complainant has tendered her affidavit Ex.C1, copy of policy Ex.C2, legal notice Ex.C3, postal receipt Ex.C4. On the other hand, op no.1 tendered affidavit Ex.R1, clarification given by op no.2 to op no.1 Ex.R2. OP no.2 tendered his affidavit Ex.R3.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.                In view of the counter replies to the complaint given by opposite parties No.1 & 2 supported by their affidavits, the learned counsel for complainant at the time of arguments has contended that opposite parties be directed to refund surrender value of the policy in question to her. As per the stand of the opposite parties that complainant can withdraw the amount after three years of investment and as complainant made payment of Rs.31,000/- to ops in the month of August, 2010, therefore, it is directed that opposite parties will make payment of surrender value to the complainant within two months, if she surrenders the policy in question to them. The present complaint stands disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                                     President,

Dated: 06.12.2016.                                Member                District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                      Redressal Forum, Sirsa.