DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR

Complaint No.222 of 2020

Date of Instt. 07.08.2020

Date of Decision: 26.10.2021

Ashwani Kumar, Age 51 years, S/o Lal Chand, H.No. 13-A, Bhagat Singh Nagar, Model House, Jalandhar.

….. Complainant

Versus

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jalandhar Division, Unit 4, Model Town Road, Near Sky Lark Hotel, Jalandhar City, through its Branch Manager/Authorized Representative.

..…Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President)

Smt. Jyotsna (Member)

Present: Complainant in Person.

Sh. S. C. Sood, Adv. Counsel for the OP.

Order

Kuljit Singh(President)

1. The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the OPs on the averments that he purchased life insurance policy no. 133663152 dated 12.02.2013 with yearly premium of Rs.24631/- for sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/- with maturity date is 12.02.2033. He deposited Rs.1,97,048/- in eight installments @ Rs.24631/-, out of which the OP gave Rs.50,000/- as money back to him. OP has given Rs,55,774/- to him through NEFT dated 30.06.2020. The OP should have given sum of Rs.1,47,047/-but OP has given Rs.55,774/- to him as such OP has given less amount of Rs.91,274/- to him which tantamount to unfair trade practice. He requested OP several times to pay balance amount of Rs.91,274/- but despite several visits OP has neither given balance amount nor interest thereon, which amounts to negligence and deficiency in service. Due to act and conduct of OPs, he has filed the present complaint and prayed that OP be directed to pay balance amount of Rs.91,274/-, besides Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation and RS.5500/- as cost of litigation.

2. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written statement by averring that the complainant has received the surrender value and has given the discharge slip on 23.06.2020 to the tune of Rs.55,774/- as full and final payment. The complainant has also received an amount of Rs.50,000/-. The complainant has applied on 23.06.2020 to receive the surrender value under policy and calculation was made by OP as per terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant is not entitled to receive any amount of Rs.91,274/-. The complainant was entitled to receive the surrender value of the policy, which has been duly received without any protest and accepted the same. OP denied any deficiency in service and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-A along with copies of the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, OP has tendered in evidence copies of documents Ex.O-1 to Ex.O-8 and closed the evidence.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case very minutely as well as written arguments filed by opposite party.

5. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. This fact is admitted that the complainant purchased insurance policy bearing no. 133663152 dated 12.02.2013 with yearly premium of Rs.24631/- for sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/-. This fact is clear from copy of policy Ex.C-2 placed on the record. The complainant alleged that he has paid all the premiums to OP time to time. He has placed on record copies of receipts of premium, Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-10 on the record. He alleged that the OP is liable to pay Rs.1,47,047/- to him but OP has given less amount of Rs.91,274/- which tantamount to unfair trade practice.

6. To counter the version of the complainant, counsel for OP stated that the complainant has received the surrender value and has given the discharge voucher at the time of receipt of the amount. The documents regarding receipt of cheque duly signed by the complainant placed on the record.

7. The learned counsel for OP placed on record judgments titled as Prem Prakash Agarwal vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd reported in III (2007) CPJ 433 (NC) wherein it has been held that discharge voucher executed voluntarily. The complainant not alleged their execution under fraud, undue influence. Not allowed to take about turn after receipt of said payment. Further, case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd and others versus Kusum Distributors and another reported in III (2007) CPJ 31 (NC) wherein it has been complainant accepted amount towards full and final settlement. Appeal allowed. The case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Krishna Rice Mills reported in II (2008) CPJ 327 (NC) that full and final settlement of claim. Discharge receipt signed by complainant in full and final settlement of claim. No duress, coercion, manipulative practice on the part of insurer alleged. No relief entitled.

8. From perusal of entire record, it has transpired that the complainant this fact is not disputed the complainant purchased the insurance policy in question from OP against premium. The complainant alleged that the OP liable to pay Rs. 91,274/- to him. But from perusal of discharge voucher dated 23.06.2020 Ex.O-1 which is placed on record, it seems that the complainant voluntarily signed the same. In statement of account Ex.O-2 the balance payment has been mentioned as Rs.55,774/- which has paid to the complainant. In form of Receipt for Surrender Value Ex.O-3 the complainant received the payment of Rs.55,774/- which he is entitled. This form signed by complainant himself, he cannot deny the same. The complainant has failed to prove that on what basis, he is entitle for Rs.91,274/- from OP. From perusal of column no. 2 of Surrender application/Discharge form Ex.O-4, it has revealed that the complainant has surrender the policy due to urgent financial need, as such, it is crystal clear that he voluntarily surrender the policy and as per terms and conditions of the policy, the OP paid Rs.55,774/- to complainant and same amount has been received by the complainant voluntarily, this fact is clear from ExO-1 discharge voucher and ExO-3 is form of receipt of surrender value of the policy. In the instant case, the discharge voucher was admittedly executed voluntarily by the complainant as such there is no question of fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence. In this situation, we do not agree with the version of the complainant. The discharge voucher is most important document which has signed by the complainant himself and he cannot wriggle out from the same. The citations placed on record by counsel for OP are application in the case in hand. The Hon’ble National Commission has specifically clear in judgment case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Krishna Rice Mills (supra), that full and final settlement of claim received by complainant giving discharge slip, no relief is to be granted.

9. In the light of our above discussion, we find no merit in the submissions of the complainant and as such, we hereby dismiss the complaint of the complainant. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

10. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission

26^th of October 2021

Kuljit Singh

(President)

Jyotsna

(Member)