Haryana

Sonipat

334/2014

SUNITA DEVI W/O MAHABIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

Life Insurance Corporation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

O.P. BHARDWAJ

14 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                             Complaint No.334 of 2014

                             Instituted on:04.12.2014

                             Date of order:08.10.2015

 

Smt Sunita Devi wife of Mahabir Singh, r/o V&PO Purkhas Rathee, tehsil Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat.

                                       ...Complainant.

                      Versus

 

The Manager, LIC of India, Branch Gohana, Distt. Sonepat.

 

                                      ...Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. OP Bhardwaj Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. PK Bhagat Tyagi Adv. for respondent.

         

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

        D.V.RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that she has purchased a policy bearing no.175540017 dated 20.3.2007 under money plus by depositing total Rs.30,000/- i.e. Rs.10,000/- per year w.e.f. 2007 to 2009. After maturity, the complainant approached the respondent for withdrawal of Rs.57479/-, but the respondent gave no response to the request of the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       In reply, the respondent has admitted that the complainant has deposited three yearly premium of Rs.10,000/- with the respondent  and the policy got foreclosed on 20.3.2012. NAV rate on 20.3.2012 was Rs.11.5212 and the units secured under the policy were 2437.045, so as per terms and conditions of the policy, the amount of Rs.28078/- is payable to the complainant and not Rs.574479/-. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief as has been sought by her by way of present complaint and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has purchased a policy bearing no.175540017 dated 20.3.2007 under money plus by depositing total Rs.30,000/- i.e. Rs.10,000/- per year w.e.f. 2007 to 2009. After maturity, the complainant approached the respondent for withdrawal of Rs.57479/-, but the respondent gave no response to the request of the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

         Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the complainant has deposited three yearly premium of Rs.10,000/- with the respondent  and the policy got foreclosed on 20.3.2012. NAV rate on 20.3.2012 was Rs.11.5212 and the units secured under the policy were 2437.045, so as per terms and conditions of the policy, the amount of Rs.28078/- is payable to the complainant and not Rs.574479/-. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief as has been sought by her by way of present complaint.

         He has further submitted that the policy subscribed by the complainant is a market linked policy and as per the terms and conditions, the fund value of the market linked policy is dependent upon the stock market conditions.  There was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

           But we find no force in the contentions raised by the ld.counsel for the respondent. We have perused the pamphlet Ex.C5 which was got published by the agent of the respondent.  In this pamphlet, it is mentioned to deposit Rs.10,000/- for three years for the year 2007, 2008 and 2009 and get Rs.57479/- in the year 2012. On this pamphlet, the mobile numbers are also mentioned.  The respondent has no where disputed this pamphlet and has no where mentioned that this pamphlet is true or false.  If it is false, then whether any action has been taken by the respondent against the said person who got published this pamphlet to mislead the innocent persons.  In our view, definitely the complainant is entitled to get Rs.57479/- from the respondent.  As per the respondent, the total monetary value under the policy is Rs.28078/-.  If the respondent has paid the amount of Rs.28078/- to the complainant, then after deducting the amount of Rs.28078/-, the respondent are directed to pay the balance amount to the complainant.  If the amount of Rs.28078/- has not been paid by the respondent to the complainant, in that event, it is directed to the respondent to pay Rs.57479/- to the complainant. It is also directed that whatever the amount is payable by the respondent to the complainant, the same be paid to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the said payable amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization.

           With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati Member) (DV Rathi Member)     (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat         DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced 08.10.2015.