Delhi

East Delhi

CC/649/2014

RAM KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC - Opp.Party(s)

04 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 649/14

 

Shri Ram Kumar

Ch. No. G-520, G-Block

5^th Floor, Karkardooma Court,

Delhi

A-2/189/34, Amar Colony

East Gokalpur, Delhi                                                                   ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. The General Manager/Authorized Officer

Life Insurance Corporation of India.

•  

Mayur Vihar Phase-I

Delhi – 110 091

 

2. Shri R.K. Srivastava (Agent) of policy

Mayur Vihar Branch

13.14, DDA Shoppping Centre

Poclet-II, Phase – I

Mayur Vihar, Delhi                                                                                        ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 30.07.2014

Judgment Reserved on:18.11.2016

Judgment Passed on: 08.12.2016

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Shri Ram Kumar has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against LIC of India (OP-1) and Shri R.K. Srivastava, Agent of Policy (OP-2) for deficiency of services.

2.        The facts in brief are that the complainant, who was a policy holder of LIC was having policy no. 124220452 dated 20.09.2008.  His monthly premium @ Rs. 550/- was paid through ECS from his account no. 90100100001308 at UCO Bank, Karkardooma branch.  When he checked his account regarding monthly ECS of premium, he found that ECS with effect from February, 2014 till date was not deducted.  No information/reason was given to him, though he was having sufficient amount in his account.

            Prior to this, his policy also lapsed in December 2011 to May 2012 for which a legal notice of dated 07.06.2012 was served upon the respondents.  The complainant was forced to pay extra payment of      Rs. 4,193/- + Rs. 126/-.  Thereafter, the complainant regularized his policy.  It has further been stated that if some miss-happening would have happened during this period, his legal heirs would have been denied the claim.  Thus, it has been stated that respondent no. 1 was liable to make the payment and respondent no. 2, being the agent was also jointly and severely responsible for deficient services.  Hence, the complainant has claimed an amount of Rs. 50,000/-  as compensation on account of mental pain and agony and direction to make full payment of the policy. 

3.        In the reply, filed on behalf of LIC (OP-1), they have stated that the policy holder, who opt for ECS have to file a declaration that in case of delay or incomplete information, he would not hold LIC responsible.  Further, from February 2014, the bank stopped premium as the 16 digit bank account number was required.  Thus, it has been stated that as per declaration made by the complainant, they were not liable for the same as in ECS mode of payment, it was the responsibility of the policy holder to ensure payment of the premium. 

It has further been stated that in the month of December, 2011, the policy lapsed due to dishonor of the cheque.  The complainant got the policy revived by paying dues from 12/2011 to 07.2012, which amounted to Rs. 4,080/- with late fee of     Rs. 142/-.  From August 2013 to January 2014, the premium was regularly deducted through ECS and from February 2014, the premium was stopped by the bank as the 16 digit bank account number was required.  Thus, they have claimed that the insurance company was not responsible for the ECS deduction.

            No WS has been filed by OP-2.     

4.        The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OP-1, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.

5.        In support of its claim, the complainant examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.  He has also got exhibited copies of documents such as policy bond (Ex.CW-1/A), bank statement (Ex.CW-1/B,C,D &F), legal notice (Ex.CW-1/G) and AD card (Ex.CW-1/H), regret letter of respondent (Ex.CW-1/I), copy of revival quotation 1/J), legal notice and its AD receipts (Ex.CW-1/K) & (Ex.CW-1/L) and bank account statement (Ex.CW-1/M).

            In defence, LIC (OP-1) have examined Shri D.K. Joshi, Legal Manager, who has deposed on affidavit in which he has narrated the facts stated in the WS.  He has also got exhibited copy of ECS form (R-1).

6.        We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of OP-1 that as per the ECS declaration for non-remittance of amount to the insurance company by the bank through ECS facility, the insurance company was not responsible for the same. 

            On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that insurance company was under obligation to ask the bank to remit the amount. 

The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether non-remittance of amount by the bank to the insurance company through ECS facility amounts to deficiency on the part of insurance company. 

If a look is made to the terms and conditions of LIC in respect of ECS facility, it has been noticed that there has been a declaration to the effect that “If any transaction is delayed or not effected at all for the reasons of incomplete or incorrect information of non-availability of funds or closure of Accounts etc.  I would not hold LIC or the user institution responsible.  I understand that the first transaction after authorisation may take one month time in getting the process commenced.  I also understand that I can pay the premium only on behalf of my near relatives as prescribed by the Income-Tax Act, 1961.  I/We have read the terms and conditions and I/We agree to the same and also have submitted a copy for the mandate form to my Bank.”

Thus, from this, it is evident that LIC was not responsible for non receipt of remittance by the bank through ECS facility.  It is the duty of the account holder to ensure that the premium was paid regularly.  When the premium has not been paid through ECS facility, the LIC cannot be held responsible for the same and there cannot be said to be any deficiency on the part of LIC.  if the complainant was having sufficient amount in his bank account, it was the duty of the bank to remit the amount through ECS facility.  The reason, given by the insurance company that the complainant have not given 16 digit number to the bank due to which ECS remittance has not been made seems to be plausible.  Thus, the fact remains that for non-remittance of premium through ECS facility by the bank, the insurance company cannot be said to be deficient in their services.  

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there has been no deficiency on the part of insurance company.  Therefore, the complaint deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member 

           

    (SUKHDEV SINGH)

          President