Hon’ble Mr. Haradhan Mukhopadhyay, President.
The basic fact of the case of the complainant as stated in the complaint is that the Complainant Anarul Hoque as a consumer of the OP Life Insurance Corporation of India purchased a LIC policy having endowment policy No.452504366 for 15 years with sum assured for Rs.30,000/- as per terms and condition for which he paid total premium. Due to urgent need of money the Complainant applied for loan to the OP LICI. Accordingly, the OP granted loan to the Complainant for which the Complainant paid interest up to date against the said loan. Before granting the loan the OP received original policy certificate in their custody but after full payment of loan amount the Complainant claimed the original policy certificate from the OP to which OP answered that the original Policy was sent through registered post but the Complainant did not receive the original policy till the filing of the case. Subsequently, the Complainant contacted with the Post Office but the Postmaster could not trace out the original policy and somehow the Complainant collected the duplicate LIC policy on 04/10/2016 with the help of the postmaster. The Complainant opened bank account after receiving discharged voucher for maturity claim payment on 13/4/2017. The Complainant received his Aadhar card in 2017 in his name as Anarul Patoyari and voter card identity name is Anarul Patoyari and opened bank account in the name of Anarul Patwary. Anarul Patoyari and Anarul Hoque are same and identical person. On 13/4/2017 the Complainant opened discharge voucher from the OP for maturity claim and thereafter submitted all the documents like bank account details voter ID card, Aadhar card, insurance policy and the filled up discharge voucher. Subsequently, on 04/12/2017 the Complainant became astonished knowing that the policy claimed had been already paid to one Anarul Miya on 20-10-2017. Subsequently, the Complainant met with the OP to inform that the payment was made to a wrong person namely Anarul Miya and the OP also issued a letter to the said Anarul Miya with a request to return back money within 7 days otherwise he will be in trouble including legal action against him. The Complainant therefore sent a legal notice on 20/08/2018 and 04/12/2018 but he did not realize the maturity payment from the OP till date. The name of the nominee for the said policy is Chhakila Bibi who is the wife of the Complainant. The OP did not properly enquire and being negligent disbursed the maturity money to a wrong person. Thus the total activities of the OP caused deficiency in service. The cause of action arose on 13/04/2017. The Complainant therefore prayed for an award Rs.48,300/- with up to date interest, Rs.30,000/- for mental agony and deficiency service and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation cost.
The OP contested the case by filing written version wherein they denied the major allegations. The positive defence case in brief is that the policy holder submitted signed proposal for insurance with a school certificate as his proof of age. The Complainant did not bring to the notice of the OP about the difference of his name in his Epic, Aadhar with that of the policy record prior to the date of maturity. It is only after receipt of discharge voucher he opened a bank account and sworn affidavit of his different name with a mala fide intention of duping the OP. It is admitted that the maturity proceeds were paid to one Anarul Miya on 21/10/2017 on the basis of affidavit sworn in before the First Class Magistrate, Dinhata declaring Anarul Hoque and Anarul Miya as one and same person. The said Anarul Miya submitted the original policy bond while claiming the amount. It is assumed that since Anarul Miya and the Complainant is the resident of same locality. The policy bond might have been stolen from the Complainant and may have taken the money from the OP. The Complainant submitted proof of alleged wrong payment and copy of letter of the OP to substantiate the wrong payment. The Complainant should have put up a criminal case against the person or at least made him as one of the OPs of this case. The OP paid the maturity claim on the basis of an affidavit Sworn before First Class Magistrate duly identified by an Advocate. Therefore, the branch may have taken a lenient view on the matter and no suspicion could have arisen. The OP has been doing departmental enquiry on the whole matter and under process of taking necessary actions to the erring person (if any). It is not the intention of the OP to deny the due benefits to the proper person holding a valid policy. Accordingly, the OP demanded document from the Complainant to release the maturity process of the said policy. But the Complainant filed the present case. The OP claimed that the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
The respective conflicting case of the parties led this Commission to ascertain the following points in order to have proper adjudication of the case.
Points for Determination
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the present case is maintainable or not?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief if any the Complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with reasons
Point No.1.
The OP challenged the status of the complainant as well as the case on the ground that the present case does not fall within the purview of the C.P. Act.
After perusing pleadings of the parties it transpires that the OP admitted that the Complainant purchased the LIC policy from the OP LIC bearing No. 452504366. The case record also shows that the Complainant obtained discharge voucher from the OP in order to have the maturity money on completion of the policy.
The OP also admitted that in their opinion the final policy might have been stolen which was obtained by a person of the nearby locality of the Complainant.
The OP also admitted that they will to repay the maturity money.
Thus after assessing the entire pleadings and the evidence in the case record it is reasonably inferred the Complainant is a consumer under the C.P. Act and the present case is maintainable subject to the ascertainment of fate of the other two points.
Points No.2 & 3.
Both the points are very closely interlinkedwith each other and accordingly these are taken up together for brevity and convenience of discussion.
The Complainant in his pleading confessed categorically that there is a discrepancy in his name on the point that Complainant Anarul Hoque and Anarul Patwary is one and same identical person. While in the Aadhar card his name is recorded as Anarul Patwary and accordingly he opened bank account in the name of Anarul Patwary.
It is evident from the copy of LIC policy that the said insurance policy was opened in the name of Anarul Hoque of Vill- Dukhabholarkuthi, P.O.Kowari, Dist- Cooch Behar, Pin-736135.
The OP also admitted about the said policy No. 452504366. Despite this discrepancy in the name the OP stated in their written version that the Complainant did not raise the said maturity money. Actually in Par-18 of the written version the OP categorically stated inter alia that it is admitted that the maturity proceeds was paid to one Anarul Miya on 21/10/2017 on the basis of affidavit sworn in before the First Class Magistrate, Dinhata declaring Anarul Hoque and Anarul Miya as one and same person. The said Anarul Miya submitted original policy bond while claiming the amount.
The Complainant admitted that he lost his original policy and submitted a duplicate copy thereof to the OP. The Complainant also proved filed copy of Aadhar card, Voter ID card wherein the original name is recorded as Anarul Patwary. One affidavit is also filed sworn before notary Dinhata stating his name is Anarul Patwary and Anarul Hoque is one and same person. So far as the further pleading is concerned it is also admitted by the OP that the Complainant has submitted the proof of the alleged wrong payment and copy of letter issued by the OP to substantiate the wrong payment.
The OP further admitted that the OP paid the maturity claim of policy No. 452504366 on the basis of an affidavit sworn before class one Magistrate duly identified by an Advocate.
Thus after assessing the entire evidence and on the basis of admission of the OP it is crystal clear that the maturity money of the said LIC policy No. 452504366 was not paid to the actual policy holder namely Anarul Hoque. Therefore the OP has to take all steps for payment of the maturity money to the actual policy holder. Any wrong payment to a person who is not entitled to get it cannot take award the right of the actual policy holder. The OP is at liberty to hold departmental enquiry to take necessary action to the erring person but that cannot take the right of actual policy holder to get the maturity money on its maturity.
Points No.2 & 3 are accordingly decided in favour of the Complainant.
Consequently, the complaint case succeeds.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case No. CC/24/2019 be and the same is allowed on contest with cost Rs.5,000/-.
The Policy holder of the LIC policy No.452504366 do get an award for the maturity money of the said policy together with interest@ 8% per annum. The OP is directed to make arrangement for payment of maturity money of the said policy No.452504366 for 15 years sum assured Rs.30,000/- together with interest @ 6% per annum to the actual policy holder on the basis of the terms and conditions of the said policy. The OP is at liberty to obtain the documents from the policy holder to ascertain the actual identity of the policy holder including an affidavit from First Class Magistrate within 30 days from the date of passing the Final Order till the date of payment the OP shall also pay Rs.5,000/- litigation cost.
The Complaint case is accordingly disposed of.
D.A. to note in the trial Register.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
