Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that complainant Shobhan Lal aged about 78 years and his wife Pervesh Jain aged about 75 years old had purchased policies bearing No. 302565734 and 302565733 respectively under policy Plan-828, “Varishtha Pension Bima Yojna” from the Opposite Party. As per the terms and conditions of aforesaid policy plan, the Opposite Party have to pay the pensions/ interests and purchase price as specified in the schedule and as per this plan, the LIC will provide them annuities/ pensions in monthly, quarterly, half yearly on the basis of purchasing minimum or maximum premium limit. It was also told by the representative of the Opposite Party that the age of the wife of the complainant is also more than 60 years and if they both invest their earned/ saved money under this Plan it will be more beneficial to both of them to save and secure their future old age life, the detail of the premium limits is duly mentioned in para No. 4 of the complaint. As such, the complainant and his wife both made payment of Rs.6,20,000/- each to purchase the aforesaid policies under the plan mentioned above. Thereafter, the Opposite Party had paid interest/ premium on purchase price to the complainant and his wife both in the first year regularly. However, after one year, they denied/ refused paying premium/ interest to the complainant having policy No. 302565734. The Opposite Party has not paid the interest/ pension to the complainant from the last more than one year. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of Opposite Party and at last, after so many visits, he received a letter dated 20.12.2016, vide which the Opposite Party has cancelled the policy bearing No. 302565734 of the complainant Shobhan Lal on the ground that under this Plan-828 ‘Varishtha Pension Bima Yojna’ co funded by Government of India, provides the maximum annual pension/ interest of Rs.60,000/- only to a single life/ family and since the complainant and his wife have exceeded the premium limit with purchase of multiple policies and the corporate office has decided to cancel the policy No. 302565734 and refunds the purchase price. But the alleged rules were in existence at the time of issuance of the policy and the said policies were issued by Opposite Party after verifying the record and as such, due to the lapse on the part of the officials of the Opposite Party, the complainant suffered great financial loss as well as mental agony and suffered loss on account of payment of interest/ pension for 15 months. The complainant made so many requests to the Opposite Party to make good the loss, but to no affect and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Party may be directed to make the payment of pension/ interest on the purchase price as per schedule under Plan-828 which has been illegally withheld by the Opposite Party and also to pay of Rs.10 lakhs on account of compensation due to mental tension and harassment caused by the complainant or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted.
3. Opposite Party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. In fact, at the time of proposal, the complainant was disclosed about the maximum limit of pension scheme i.e. Rs.60,000/- per annum, but however the complainant without disclosing his earlier pension scheme got issued another pension scheme fraudulently, dishonestly and malafidely and when it was discovered that two policies belonged to same family, and the total pension benefit exceeded the maximum cap imposed, then the Opposite Party has rightly cancelled the policy and duly intimated the complainant about the same, but now just to take undue benefit of the factum of issuance of policy due to misrepresentation of the complainant, he has filed the present complaint just to put pressure to get/ extort the money which the complainant is not entitled. On merits, the Opposite Party took up almost the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. It is therefore, prayed that the complaint is not maintainable and the same deserves dismissal.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainants tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C36 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties also tendered into evidence the affidavit Ex.RA alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
7. During the course of arguments, both the ld.counsel for the parties have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in the written statement respectively. The case of the complainant is that at the time of selling two difference policies in question i.e. in the name of complainant Shobhan Lal and his wife, the agent of the Opposite Party never disclosed about the fact of maximum limit of pension scheme i.e. Rs.60,000/- in one family. On the other hand, the contention of the Opposite Party is that as and when, they came to know that total pension benefit exceeded the maximum cap imposed, then the Opposite Party has rightly cancelled the policy and duly intimated the complainant about the same, but now just to take undue benefit of the factum of issuance of policy due to misrepresentation of the complainant, he has filed the present complaint just to put pressure to get/ extort the money which the complainant is not entitled. But we do not agree with the aforesaid contention of the Opposite Party because, firstly, when the complainant and his wife do not become entitled to the benefit under this Plan-828 Varishtha Pension Bima Yojna’ co-funded by Government of India, which provides the maximum annual pension/ interest of Rs.60,000/- only to a single life/ family and since the complainant and his wife have exceeded the premium limit with purchase of multiple policies and the corporate office has decided to cancel the policy No. 302565734 and 302565733 then why they have sold the said two policies in the name of complainant and his wife in one family under the policy. Not only this, at initial stage, the Opposite Parties were giving the benefit under these both policies, but at later stage, they have stopped to give the benefit of one policy and rather cancelled the policy in the name of complainant and also not given the interest of that period after the cancellation of the policy, which becomes on calculation amounting to Rs.58,160/-. Not only this, at the time of selling their product/ policy, the agent of LIC is bound to disclose all the information which are relevant and advantageous to the insured and the policy and purpose of creating a Corporation is to sub serve the interest of the customers, but in the instant case, the Opposite Party- Insurance Company has failed to discharge their obligation towards the insured. It has been a settled position of law that the same criteria which are applicable to the insured are applicable to the insurance company also and both have to be honest to each other. In this regard, Hon’ble Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commision Ahmedabad in Original Complaint No. 156 of 1991 decided on 11.05.1992 titled as Consumer Education and Research Society Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India also held so.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and as detailed above, we hold that the complainant has suffered loss on account of interest/ pension benefits amounting to Rs.58,160/- on account of cancellation of the policy in question and hence, we allow the complaint of the Complainant and direct Opposite Party-Insurance Company to pay the amount of Rs.58,160/-(Rupees fifty eight thousands one hundred sixty only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 22.11.2017 till its actual realization. Opposite Party–Insurance Company is also directed to pay compensation to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousands only). The compliance of this order be made by Opposite Party-Insurance Company within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced in accordance with law. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
9. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint today i.e.23.05.2022 at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible as it could decide the same
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
Dated: 23.05.2022.
