DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 110 of 27.04.2007<br /> Decided on : 20-08-2007 <br /> <br /> Ashok Kumar Jindal S/o Sh. Raja Ram Jindal C/o Jindal Oil and Ginning Mills, Bathinda Road, Goniana Mandi now resident of Bhatti Road, Bathinda. <br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office, Jeewan Jyoti Building, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda through its Senior Branch Manager. ...Opposite party<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Naresh Garg, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite party : Sh. Sandeep Baghla, Advocate. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Four Insurance Policies bearing Nos. 170004114, 160315436, 160518210 and 160783924 dated 28.3.87, 28.2.90, 15.4.93 and 28.6.95 for Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 1.00 Lac, Rs. 2.00 Lacs and Rs. 5.00 Lacs respectively were purchased by the complainant. First three policies are money back policies. He had raised loan of Rs. 1,10,000/- against policy No. 160783924 in the month of July, 1999. Through letter dated 21.01.01, opposite party had intimated that Rs. 61,500/- were paid in excess in the loan amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- . This amount was demanded from him. He (complainant) asserts that loan amount of Rs.1,10,000/- was rightly sanctioned. Opposite party was supposed to give the account statement. Original policy No. 160783924, original receipt of Rs. 61,500/-, loan documents etc., are in possession of the opposite party. It is supposed to release the documents on receipt of demanded amount of Rs. 61,500/-. After sanctioning the loan amount, opposite party deducted two installments i.e. Rs. 52,242/- upto date. After deducting the previous loan of Rs. 14,000/- interest and other amount, a sum of Rs. 37,917/- was paid to him out of loan amount of Rs. 1,10,000/-. It is alleged that opposite party had forfeited three policies dated 28.3.87, 28.2.90 and 15.4.93 against law and rules and amount of them was adjusted against 4th policy No. 160783924 without taking his consent. Civil suit No. 297 was filed by him against the opposite party which was decreed. An appeal was filed by the opposite party against decree which was accepted by the Learned Addl. District Judge , Bathinda on 4.8.05 giving one opportunity to him to deposit the excess amount i.e. demanded amount of Rs. 61,500/- against policy No. 160783924 within 60 days and ordering that thereafter first three policies would be revived as they were before 21.10.01. This excess amount demanded by the opposite party i.e. Rs. 61,500/- was to be adjusted towards policy No. 160783924. It was deposited by him vide pay order dated 1.10.05 of Vijay Bank, Bathinda. Opposite party did not issue any receipt of the amount against policy No. 160783924. Request was made by him orally as well as in writing to the opposite party for giving the full details including unpaid yearly installments and other dues etc., of policies. He further requested to revive the policy as he is ready and willing to deposit the previous unpaid installments. Letters dated 26.2.07, 5.3.07 and 8.3.07 were issued but opposite party gave no reply. On 7.4.07 letter was received by him from the opposite party vide which it was intimated that policy No. 160783924 stands foreclosed against which it has already adjusted part of loan amount of Rs. 61,500/- in compliance of the Judgement dated 4.8.05 delivered by learned Addl. District Judge, Bathinda. Prior to it, opposite party neither informed him nor disclosed about the status of this policy No. 160783924 before the court or in the written statement or in the grounds of appeal. Act and conduct of the opposite party is arbitrary and against principles of natural justice. Opposite party was supposed to give the details of the dues after adjusting the loan amount paid on 1.10.05. Hence, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. He has undergone mental agony, pain and harassment. In these circumstances, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') has been preferred by him seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite party to declare letter dated 7.4.07 null and void; re-instate/revive policy No. 160783924 after adjusting the amount of Rs. 61,500/-; give full details including previous unpaid installments of policy No. 160783924; pay Rs. 50,000/- as damages and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. On being put to notice, opposite party filed reply taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has already availed remedy from the civil court concerning the subject matter on the basis of the judgement dated 4.8.05 and as such, the matter cannot be re-agitated through this complaint before this forum; complainant himself is a wrong doer and has not approached this forum with clean hands; intricate and contentious questions of fact and law are involved which require rendition of accounts for which oral and documentary evidence is required and as such, matter cannot be adjudicated by this forum in summary procedure; complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct; nature of the relief sought is not covered within the provisions of the Act; complaint is not within time and it is false and frivolous. On merits, they admit that four policies were purchased by the complainant but they all stood elapsed due to non-payment of the premium. Loan was sought by the complainant for revival of the policy under loan cum revival scheme. Overpayment of Rs. 61,500/- was made to the complainant. Same was pointed out by the Audit Team on 16.2.01. This amount was assailed by the complainant in civil suit. Learned Addl. District Judge had dismissed the suit giving an opportunity to the complainant to pay the excess amount within 60 days. Loan was payable as per the surrender value acquired by the policy. He has failed to repay the full amount of the loan with uptodate interest. It denies that it was supposed to release the documents at the time of receipt of the amount of Rs. 61,500/-. Infact Rs. 61,500/- were paid on 3.10.05. They were towards excess amount recoverable from him. However, he defaulted in payment of interest and other amount. Policy No. 160783924 was lying lapsed due to non-payment of premium within time. More than five years have passed after the lapse of the policy. It cannot be revived as per its terms and conditions. A sum of Rs. 1,52,704/- was outstanding on 31.3.06. He has sufficient knowledge of it. Since the total due amount had exceeded the surrender value of this policy, it had right to foreclose it. It further denies that it did not give account statement to the complainant. Amount of Rs. 61,500/- was to be adjusted on 3.10.05. Besides this, loan amount and interest is also due. There is denial on its part that complainant had requested for giving the details of unpaid yearly installments and revival of the policy. Letter dated 26.2.07 was duly replied vide letter dated 1.3.07. Similarly letters dated 5.3.07 and 8.3.07 had been duly referred and replied vide letter dated 5.4.07. Complainant has already received the status quo regarding policy No. 160783924. Letter dated 7.4.07 was issued in reply to his previous letters, a perusal of which reveals that complainant had before hand knowledge about the foreclosure of the policy No. 160783924. It refutes the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of plaint of suit for declaration (Ex. C-2), photocopy of written statement (Ex.C-3), photocopy of letter dated 10.10.01 (Ex. C-4), photocopies of Insurance policies (Ex. C-5 to Ex. C-11), photocopy of application for first loan (Ex. C-12) and photocopies of letters (Ex. C-13 to Ex. C-16).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Sh. J P Arya, Manager (Ex.R-1), photocopy of Loan statement (Ex. R-2), photocopy of application for first loan (Ex. R-3), photocopy of letter dated 7.4.07 (Ex. R-4), photocopy of letter dated 1.3.07 (Ex. R-5), photocopies of status reports of policies (Ex. R-6 to Ex. R-8), photocopy of letter (Ex. R-9), photocopy of letter dated 11.10.01 (Ex. R-10), photocopy of policy (Ex. R-11), Copy of policy master (Ex. R-12) and photocopy of Audit Report (Ex. R-12/A) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of the parties.<br /> 6. Complainant had purchased four Insurance Policies, copies of which are Ex. C-6, Ex. C-8, Ex. C-10 and Ex. C-11. Complainant raised loan of Rs. 1,10,000/- against policy No. 160783924. According to the opposite party an amount of Rs. 61,500/- out of this amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- was over paid. Opposite party vide letter dated 11.10.01, copies of which are Ex. C-4 and Ex. R-10 respectively assessed the surrender value of polices copies of which are Ex. C-6, Ex. C-8 and Ex. C-10 as Rs. 65,810/- and adjusted Rs. 51,300/- towards excess loan paid and Rs. 12,136/- towards interest. His these three policies were forfeited. Civil Suit No. 297 dated 26.11.01 was filed by him. Copy of the plaint of that suit is Ex. C-2. It was decreed. Appeal was preferred by the opposite party which was decided on 4.8.05 by Sh. R S Attri, the then Learned Additional District Judge. It was accepted. Judgement and decree dated 5.3.05 passed in civil suit No. 297 dated 26.11.01 were set aside. Suit was dismissed. Complainant was given one more opportunity to deposit the excess amount of Rs. 61,500/- within 60 days. In case excess amount was deposited by him, policies copies of which are Ex. C-6, Ex. C-8 and Ex. C-10 were to be revived/reinstated as they were before 21.10.01. Amount of Rs. 61,500/- was paid by the complainant vide MR No. 767 dated 3.10.05. Three policies referred to above were revived/re-instated.<br /> 7. Arguments pressed into service by Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the complainant are that complainant had requested orally as well as in writing for getting full details including unpaid yearly installments and other dues against policy No. 160783924. He had issued letters dated 26.2.07, 5.3.07 and 8.3.07 in this respect to opposite party but opposite party gave no reply. Opposite party vide letter dated 7.4.07, copy of which is Ex. C-14 has foreclosed policy No. 160783924 against which it has already adjusted part loan amount of Rs. 61,500/- in compliance of the Judgement dated 4.8.2005. Prior to 7.4.07, opposite party did not disclose the status of policy No. 160783924. Last payment of Rs. 61,500/- regarding this policy was made on 1.10.05. He further argued that in these circumstances, letter dated 7.4.07 vide which policy No. 160783924 has been forfeited is illegal, null and void and that this policy deserves to be reinstated/revived and that opposite party should give the full details about the previous unpaid installment, of this policy as complainant is ready and willing to deposit the balance amount.<br /> 8. Mr. Baghla, learned counsel for the opposite party argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Amount of Rs. 61,500/- deposited by the complainant has been adjusted on 3.10.05 as is clear from Ex. R-2 towards principal and interest and that policies copies of which are Ex. C-6, Ex. C-8 and Ex. C-10 have been revived. Complainant was made fully aware of the details of the policy No. 160783924 and its status. Letter dated 7.4.07 is legal and valid. This policy No. 160783924 cannot be revived as per its terms and conditions.<br /> 9. We have considered the respect arguments and we feel ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the opposite party. Admittedly, complainant had taken loan against policy No. 160783924 by way of moving application copy of which is Ex. C-12 according to which he had agreed to pay interest on the loan amount @ 10-1/2 % p.a. to be compounded half yearly. Loan amount to the extent of Rs. 61,500/- out of Rs. 1,10,000/- was over paid. Relief of the complainant is relating to policy No. 160783924. So far as policies, copies of which are Ex. C-6, Ex. C-8 and Ex. C-10 are concerned, they have been revived as complainant paid Rs. 61,500/- through MR No. 767 dated 3.10.05 on the basis of the order dated 4.8.05 passed by the appellate authority. Scope of the case of the complainant is confined only to the relief regarding policy No. 160783924.<br /> 10. No doubt vide letter dated 11.10.01 Life Insurance Policies No. 170004114, 160315436 and 160518210 were forfeited. Their surrender value was calculated by the opposite party as Rs. 65,810/- out of which Rs. 51,300/- were adjusted towards excess loan paid and Rs. 12,136/- towards loan interest. With the deposit of Rs. 61,500/- on 3.10.05 by the complainant, these three policies stand revived. Amount of Rs. 51,300/- and Rs. 12,136/- mentioned in the letter dated 11.10.01 cannot be considered to have been adjusted towards the excess loan paid and loan interest respectively from 11.10.01 particularly when this amount was considered out of the surrender value of the three policies which have been revived as they were before 11.10.01. Opposite party has rightly adjusted the amount of Rs. 51,300/- and Rs. 10,200/- i.e. Rs. 61,500/- as is evident from Ex. R-2. This amount was deposited 3.10.05 on the basis of Judgement and Decree dated 4.8.05.<br /> 11. Next question is as to whether policy No. 160783924 has been rightly foreclosed by the opposite party ? As mentioned above, complainant had taken loan against this policy. Out of the loan amount, Rs. 61,500/- were paid in excess. This amount has been deposited by the complainant on 3.10.05 Complainant was required to pay the balance loan amount alongwith interest. There is no pleading of the complainant that he has paid the loan amount alongwith interest. No document is on the record to this effect.<br /> 12. Main allegation of the complainant revolves on letters dated 26.2.07, 5.3.07 and 8.3.07. Copies of the letters dated 5.3.07 and 8.3.07 are Ex. C-15 & Ex. C-16 respectively. Opposite party admits these letters in para No. 15 of the reply of the complaint. So far as letter dated 26.2.07, copy of which is Ex. C-13 is concerned, it relates to other three policies regarding which there is no dispute. Reply of the other letters dated 5.3.07 and 8.3.07 was given vide letter dated 7.4.07, copy of which is Ex. R-4. From the record, it transpires that for the first time complainant sought the details of policy No. 160783924 through letter dated 8.3.07. Opposite party intimated the complainant vide letter dated 7.4.07 that this policy No. 160783924 has been foreclosed as per audit objection. Copy of the audit report is Ex. R-12/A. He was informed that status code reports have already been given to him in person and his all queries were answered to his satisfaction. As per Clause `6' of the loan application, opposite party is well within its right to foreclose the policy incase of default in the payment of loan and interest thereon. Complainant has committed default in the payment of loan amount and interest thereon. Surrender value of policy No. 160783924 as on 31.3.06 was Rs. 1,21,756/- whereas the total amount due towards the complainant upto 31.3.06 was Rs. 1,53,297/- as per loan statement Ex. R-2. Accordingly opposite party was well within its to foreclose the policy. Ex. R-12 is the copy of the Policy Master according to which first unpaid premium is of 6/2000. Complainant has failed to establish that he has deposited the amount of premiums from 6/2000 onwards. Facts and circumstances clearly show that he was/has become aware of the details of the policy No. 160783924 and its status. Accordingly, we conclude that letter dated 7.4.07 is legal and valid and policy has been correctly forfeited by the opposite party.<br /> 13. Complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the policy No. 160783924, copy of which is Ex. C-11. Terms of the policy have to be construed as it is and nothing can be added or subtracted as has been held by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. M/s. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal 2005(1)CPR 64 (SC). A grace period of one month but not less than 30 days could be allowed for payment of yearly, half yearly and quarterly premium and 15 days for monthly premium. First unpaid premium of the policy in question is of 6/2000. No evidence has been led by the complainant that he has paid the premium amount within the grace period and thereafter he has paid the premiums. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mani Ram III(2005) CPJ 31 (SC) that policy would lapse in case of non-compliance i.e. when premium is not paid within the grace period. In this case, complainant has defaulted in the payment of premium of policy and there is unpaid premium w.e.f. 6/2000. Moreover more than five years have elapsed from the date of unpaid premium. As per Clause `3' of the terms and conditions of the policy, policy can be revived within a period of five years from the date of first unpaid premium. In these circumstances, this policy cannot be revived as first unpaid premium is w.e.f. 6/2000.<br /> 14. In view of our foregoing discussion, crux of the matter is that complainant has failed to establish deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly, complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,000/-.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and file be consigned to record room. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 20-08-2007 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member<br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member<br /> President <br /> <br /> <br />