Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/43

Gilan Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Life Ins.Corpn.of India - Opp.Party(s)

31 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 43 of 15.01.2015

Date of Decision            :   31.08.2015

 

Gian Chand Goel s/o Late Sh.Faquir Chand Aggarwal, resident of :B-33, House No.1957, Street No.2, New Aman Nagar, Saleem Tabri, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.Marketing Manager, Divisional Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Phase-I, Dugri, Ludhiana.

2.Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India(Unit No.1), Bhadaur House, Ludhiana.

3.Surinder Kumar, Agent(Life Insurance Corporation of India), Resident of B-33-463, Saroop Nagar, Saleem Tabri, Ludhiana.

..…Opposite parties

 

 

                   (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

MS.BABITA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :         In person.

For OP1 and OP2          :         Sh.V.K.Gupta, Advocate

For OP3                         :         Sh.Harpreet Singh, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Sh.Gian Chand Goel filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against the OPs, by alleging that he, a senior citizen of 75 years of age and pensioner from Punjab Government got LIC Policy No.300412755 from Ops. Ten yearly installments of Rs.13,595/- each were deposited by the complainant as per terms and conditions of the said policy and amount of Rs.1,35,950/- in all deposited in ten years. Complainant claims that he is entitled to get all the benefits of bonus, interim and loyalty bonus etc., after the date of maturity of 28.12.2014. Therefore, the total bonus amount as per complainant comes to nearly Rs.2,00,000/-. However, the complainant received registered letter dated 10.09.2014 from OP1 for getting information as if amount of Rs.1,34,200/- (i.e. basic assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- plus vested bonus of Rs.30,800/- and interim bonus of Rs.3400/-) is only payable to him on maturity of the policy. That alleged due amount of Rs.1,34,200/- is less than the amount of Rs.1,35,950/- deposited by the complainant. Deficiency in service on the part of Ops pleaded by the complainant by claiming that OP3 on contacting, advised him to proceed legally. Rather he advised for taking complainant to OP1, the competent authority to settle all disputes.  Complainant approached OP1 in their office and after discussion, he was assured about his legal entitlement to get all the benefits including bonus. Information under RTI Act, 2005 was obtained by the complainant.

2.                Op1 and OP2 in joint written statement claimed interalia as if the complaint is not maintainable because due services rendered to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the policy in question with date of commencement of 28.12.2004 with term of 10 years. Before date of maturity, LIC issued Maturity Discharge Form to the complainant, so that payment in time may be made to him. That Discharge Maturity Form spells out the sum assured bonus and interim bonuses. Sum assured is Rs.1,00,000/-, but vested bonus Rs.30,800/- and interim bonus Rs.3400/-. Total payable amount comes to Rs.1,34,200/-. Complainant has not submitted the required documents for getting due amount on maturity. Risk factor is involved as and when a person of 65 years of age is insured. In case any agent gives advise contrary to the terms of the policy, then LIC cannot do anything. LIC officials convinced the complainant that maturity payment calculations are accurate as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Information sought under RTI Act was duly provided to the complainant.

3.                In separate written statement filed by OP3, it is also pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Admittedly, complainant deposited 10 yearly premium installments of Rs.13,595/- each. Complainant purchased policy after reading and understanding terms and conditions of the policy in the presence of his family members i.e.sons Sh.Rajesh Gupta(CA), Hemraj Goyal(Business Man) and daughter in law Rajni Gupta(Bank Officer). Purpose of complainant was to get the insurance benefits like natural death risk, accidental benefit and disability benefit. After the maturity date, the complainant was to get the sum assured amount alongwith vested bonus and interim bonus and as such, complainant entitled to amount of Rs.1,34,200/-, split of which, is referred above. It is denied that OP3 disclosed complainant as if LIC is in the habit of harassing their customers or OP3 advised complainant to approach the Consumer Forum.

4.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and then closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP1 and OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA1 of Sh.C.L.Lalhal, Manager(L & HPF) of LIC and even tendered documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.                 Similarly, counsel for OP3 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA3 of Sh. Surinder  Kumar  and even  tendered  documents  Ex.R1  and  Ex.R2   and thereafter, closed the evidence.

7.                          Written arguments not submitted by any of parties. Oral arguments addressed and were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

8.                Undisputedly, the policy in question was purchased by the complainant on 28.12.2004 for assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Copy of insurance policy cover note has been produced by the complainant as Ex.C1, but              by respondent as Ex.R1(numbering 2). After going through the terms of Ex.R1=Ex.C1, it is made out that date of maturity was 28.12.2014 and premium payable was Rs.13,595/- per annum. On the policy itself it has been endorsed that endownment assurance policy will give benefits of sum assured + vested bonus, in case, death of assured takes place before the date of maturity. Sum assured+vested bonus will be available in the event of survival of the assured on the date of maturity.            So, the terms and conditions of the insurance policy purchased by the complainant spells out in crystal clear terms that complainant on maturity of the policy to get the sum assured amount + vested bonus amount only. Complainant is alive after the date of maturity of the policy namely 28.12.2014 and as such, as per the terms of the contract of insurance policy in question, complainant is entitled to sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- + vested and interim bonus amount alone. That amount of vested and interim bonus is Rs.34,200/- only as disclosed in Ex.R2=Ex.C2. Therefore, submissions of complainant has no force that he is entitled to amount of Rs.2,00,000/- because he had  deposited Rs.1,35,950/- through 10 yearly installments.

9.                Certainly, LIC policy is not like an FDR, but the said policy covers the risk of life and as such, even if the complainant may have paid more than the due maturity amount, despite that he is not entitled to an amount in  excess of the amount contracted to be receivable by him on maturity of the policy in question.

10.              As per law laid down in cases Deokar Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd.-2009(2)CLT-15(S.C.), in a contract of insurance, rights and obligations are strictly governed by the policy of insurance. No exception or relaxation can be made on the ground of equity. As paid consideration not to weigh with us in matter of grant of relief in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court of the country in above cited case and as such, rights and obligations under insurance policy are  strictly to be governed by the terms thereof. So, submissions of Sh.V.K.Gupta, Advocate has force that complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.1,34,200/-, which consist of sum assured amount + vested bonus and interim bonus amount. As Ops themselves by writing letter Ex.C2=Ex.R2 has called upon the complainant to acknowledge receipt of due maturity amount of Rs.1,34,200/- and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

11.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, the present complaint merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. However, entitlement of the complainant will remain for an amount of Rs.1,34,200/- qua which claim is admitted by OP1 and OP2. OP1 and OP2 should make this payment at the earliest to the complainant( if the same is not made till date). Complainant will comply with the requisite formalities, if any, for getting assessed maturity amount referred above. Copy of this order be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules.

12.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 

 (Babita)                                  (Sat Paul Garg)                            (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                   Member                                       President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:31.08.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.