O R D E R
SUBHASH GUPTA, MEMBER
This judgement shall dispose of two complaint cases bearing No.71/2017 and No.72/2017 titled Sh. Pradeep Bhargava Vs. Life Insurance Corp. of India and Mrs.Vandana Bhargava Vs. Life Insurance Corp. of India.Since both the complaints have almost similar facts and issues, therefore, both the complaints are taken together for discussion and disposal. The complaint No.71/2017 shall be the leading case.Succinctly stated the facts of complaint inC.C.No.71/2017 are that complainant had taken a Life Policy bearing No.122414187 named “Jeevan Saral (WITH-PROFITS)” on 20.03.2004 and that the maturity sum assured was shown in the policy bond as Rs.2,50,000/- of which quarterly premium of Rs.3,063/- was payable to the O.P.
2. Whereas in the complaint No.72/2017 are that complainant had taken a Life Policy bearing No.122414187 named “Jeevan Saral (WITH-PROFITS)” on 25.03.2004 and that the maturity sum assured was shown in the policy bond as Rs.2,50,000/-of which quarterly premium of Rs.3,063/- was payable to the O.P. It is the case of both the complainants that they had paid an amount of Rs.1,34,772/- from March 2004 to December 2014 being 44 quarterly installments of Rs.3,063/- each. However the complainants were shocked to receive a letter dated 08.12.2014 from the O.P office showing that an maturity benefit of Rs.1,29,077.10 and Rs.1,33,208.10 was payable to both the complainants respectively. It is alleged that the complainants expected an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- being maturity sum assured plus profit amount as suggested by the name of the policy. It is further alleged that the amount offered was about the total premium paid by the complainants though the complainants expected a sum of at least Rs.3,50,000/-. It has been further alleged that at no place of the policy, it was mentioned as to what amount would be payable on the date of maturityof the policy or it would be even lesser than the premium paid by the complainants. It is alleged that after completion of formalities, the complainants finally got a sum of Rs.1,32,212/- on 28.03.2015 and Rs.1,36,343/- respectively on 30.03.2015. It have been alleged by the complainants that they would not have taken the policy in case the O.P had informed that this much amount will only be payable by it at the time of maturity of the policy.
On the basis of above facts the complainants in C.C. No.71/2017 has claimed a sum of Rs.1,52,050/-(Rs.2,50,000/- - Rs.97,950/- already paid) as the difference amount of maturity sum assuredalongwith interest @ 18% p.a. The complainant has also claimed bonus/ profits/ loyalty addition of Rs.53,186/- (proportionate amount relating to Rs.2,50,000/- - Rs.97,950/-) alongwith 18% interest. Also complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.1,000/- towards physical strain, mental agony and cost of petition respectively.
Similarly in C.C. No.72/2017 has claimed a sum of Rs.1,48,990/-(Rs.2,50,000/- - Rs.1,01,010/- already paid) as the difference amount of maturity sum assured alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. The complainant has also claimed bonus/ profits/ loyalty addition of Rs.52,116/- (proportionate amount relating to Rs.2,50,000/- - Rs.1,01,010/-) alongwith 18% interest. Further complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.1,000/- towards physical strain, mental agony and cost of petition respectively.
3. O.P appeared and filed its written statement. In its written statement O.P has taken preliminary objections that the instant complaint of the complainants are barred by law of limitation as the complainants have filed the instant complaint beyond the prescribed period of two years of limitation. It is alleged that vide letter dated 08.12.2014 the O.P. had requested the complainants to provide their accounts detail so that they can remit the matured amount in their said account. It is further alleged that after receipt of said letter the complainants had duly furnished the requisite information without making any protest/objections and subsequently both released the maturity amount. It is further alleged that the O.P. had already paid the matured amount alongwith benefits to the complainantswhich have been duly received by the complainants without any protest/objections. It is alleged that as per the terms and conditions of the policy the complainants were entitled for the benefits of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of death benefits only otherwise the complainants were entitled for the profits maturity claim under the policy which would have been calculated as per Plan NO. 165, CO/ACT/1934/4 dated 12.02.2004 and the same has been duly disclosed to the complainants at the time of taking of the above policy. Therefore, in view of the terms and conditions of the policy there are no provisions of paying the maturity amount with the death benefits. Dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
4. Both the complainants have filed their affidavits affirming the facts alleged in the complaints. On the other hand Mrs. Vinita De, Manager (L & HPF) on behalf of O.Ps has also filed its affidavit and additional affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts as stated in the written statement. Both the parties have also filed the copies of the policy as well as communications exchanged between them regarding payment etc. after the maturity of the policy. The O.P has also filed alongwith with her additional affidavit Ex. OP-1/C which is a chart showing how to calculate the maturity sum assured. Both the parties have also filed their written submissions.
5. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submissions of the complainant as well as Ld. Counsel on behalf of the O.P.
6. The short and the main controversy in this case is as to whether in the certificate of the policy the amount shown as Rs.2,50,000/- is maturity sum assured or death benefit sum assured under the main plan. The contention of the complainant that it is the maturity sum assured is not tenable in view of the calculation chart filed by the O.P as Ex. OP-1/C alongwith the affidavit of the O.P. In the affidavit it has been shown that in the terms and conditions of the policy there is no provision of paying the maturity amount with the death benefits. The chart showing the maturity sum assured per Rs.100/- monthly premium policy in respect of both the policies shows that the O.P has correctly paid the maturity amount in terms and conditions of the policy. The complainants have ignored the fact that their lives have been secured for 10 years against any mis-happening for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-.
7. We have also gone through the copy of the LIC Jeevan Saral Plan No.165 which states as under;
“In conventional plans, premium rates are given per 100 sum assured for different entry ages and terms. Under Jeevan Saral Plan, the customer has to first decide the amount of premium, he wants to pay per year. Once the premium is chosen, the sum assured payable on death gets automatically determined, whatever be the age and policy term. This is called the sum assured under the policy. In short, death cover will be same irrespective of age at entry and term, but the sum payable at maturity will different for each age at entry and term of policy. Maturity value is defined. Maturity value or death cover will be calculated for Rs.100/- premium payable monthly.”
8. We have also gone through Ex. OP-1/C which is a chart for calculating maturity sum assured per Rs.100/- monthly premium in terms of the terms and conditions plan No.165 i.e. Jeevan Saral Plan. We are in agreement with the O.P that the maturity sum assured has been correctly calculated in terms of the calculations as stipulated under the policy/ plan.
9. Keeping in view of the discussion and circumstances stated above, we are of the opinion that complainants have miserably failed to establish their case. Both the complaints are dismissed. No order as to cost. Copy of this order be placed on other complaint No.72/2017.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced this 06th day of June, 2018.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (Poonam Malhotra) President Member Member
Avi
