Complainant Atul Seth through the present complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short The Act) has prayed that opposite party be directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs.28,000/-. He has also claimed Rs.50,000/- as damages along with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 01.04.2014 till realization on account of mental harassment, agony, inconvenience and insult along with litigation expenses in the ends of justice. 

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant had obtained an insurance policy no.057336288 from the opposite party with monthly premium of Rs.2283/- which was regularly paid by the complainant upto 06.08.1987. It was pleaded that original policy of the complainant had been lost due to which he could not deposit the next premium. The maturity of the above said policy was due in May, 2014 and he was entitled to receive the maturity amount along with interest. It was pleaded that complainant approached the opposite party for payment on which he was advised to furnish bond regarding loss of original policy and as such complainant had completed all the formalities and submitted the bond with the opposite party for payment of the due amount. It was further pleaded that after some time complainant again approached the opposite party for enquiring about the payment and he was disclosed that no amount was payable to him inspite of the fact that maturity amount was due from the opposite party, which had not been paid to him. It was pleaded that due to illegal act and conduct of the opposite party complainant had suffered great mental tension, inconvenience, hardship and he is entitled to receive the damages from the opposite party to the tune of Rs.50,000/- besides the maturity amount of Rs.28,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum under the policy. It was also pleaded that complainant got a legal notice served upon the opposite party on 30.8.2014 and reminder to the legal notice was also issued on 26.9.2014 and in reply to it on 06.10.2014 it was intimated to the complainant by the opposite party that he should submit the original papers and policy bond which were already submitted by the complainant with the opposite party. It was next pleaded that the cause of action to file the present complaint had accrued to the complainant on 01.05.2014 when the policy in question was matured and complainant approached the opposite party for payment of the maturity amount under the policy in question but the opposite party failed to make the payment of above said amount (i.e. maturity amount) inspite of submission of bonds and legal noticees and when complainant approached the office of opposite party and they refused to pay the maturity amount and damages, hence this complaint.  

3.       Upon notice, the opposite party appeared through their counsel and filed its written version taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. Complainant had not made the Zonal Manager and Divisional Manager as the necessary parties. There is no such insurance policy no.05736288 with monthly mode of premium in the name of the complainant. However the above said policy was of ordinary (yearly) mode of premium. The policy in question had run with (duration) of 3  years, 3 months and 4 days from the date of commencement i.e. 01.05.1984 to 06.08.1987 (date of last payment) which had already been surrendered by the complainant. That the policy bond was not required for the deposit of premium with the opposite party. That when the premium under the policy bearing no.0573-36288 had been paid from 01.05.1984 to 06.08.1987, the policy in question had not acquired any maturity value in a period of 3 ¼ years. Hence the surrender value had been paid. That the complainant had received the surrender value of the policy on 15.6.1991 and as such there is no question of issuing duplicate policy against loss of original one. In case the complainant had furnished the bond for issuance of duplicate policy bond for the purpose of getting maturity value then he had committed fraud by concealing the material facts regarding surrender of his policy on 15.06.1991. Complainant had already admitted in para no.1 of his complaint that he had paid the premiums upto 06.08.1987 so the question of payment of maturity amount does not arise against duration of 3 years and 3 months. That complainant was not harassed by the opposite party by refusing the payment of maturity amount rather he himself harassed the opposite party by not disclosing the fact regarding the receipt of surrender value of the policy in question. That the complaint had not been verified by the complainant and the same is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. On merits, it was admitted that policy bearing no.057336288 was in the name of the complainant and the same was under ordinary (yearly) mode of premium but it was denied that premiums under the policy were being received monthly @ 2281/-. It was admitted that the premiums under the policy in question were paid upto 06.08.1987 It was denied that premium under the policy in question could not be paid due to loss of policy bond whereas policy bond was not to be produced while depositing the premium with the opposite party. It was stated that policy in question was surrendered by the complainant on 15.06.1991 so there was no question of paying the maturity value again under the same policy. It was stated that through reply of the legal notice complainant was asked through his counsel to submit original policy which was mandatory to consider the payment but he failed to produce and submit the original policy bond. Had he in possession of original policy bond, he would have submitted the same for payment. It was further stated that when complainant getting the surrender value of the policy on 15.06.1991 then how the maturity value could be paid after 3 years and 3 months duration of the policy against duration of the policy of 30 years as per table, terms and conditions of the policy. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

4.       Counsel for the complainant had tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.       Sh.Tarsem Lal Admn. Officer had tendered into evidence affidavit of Yogender Singh Sisodia Manager Legal Ex.OP-1 and copy of leadger sheet Ex.OP-2. Counsel for the opposite party closed the remaining evidence on behalf of opposite party on 27.11.2015.

6.       We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also duly considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels for both the sides, while adjudicating the present complaint. We find from the status report Ex.C2 (of 28.08.2014) of the Policy # 057336288 that it commenced on 01.05.1984 and was on an annual premium (Rs.2,283.80p per annum) payment mode and not on monthly premium basis as inadvertently stated in the present complaint. The last premium was admittedly paid on 06.08.1987 and the Policy was also lost thereafter. In its reply Ex.C5 of 04.09.2014 to the counsel for the complainant the OP insurers have stated that nobody has approached for any payment under this Policy and his client may submit his claim for consideration etc. However, in its written statement and affidavit Ex.OP1 (as duly supported by the Policy Ledger Sheet Ex.OP2) the OP insurers have confirmed that the policy in question stood duly surrendered with its surrender value having duly paid on 15.06.1991 to the policy holder complainant. We find that the OP insurers have not produced any evidence of SV payment to the complainant on 15.06.1991 but even he has neither rebutted nor contested the same, here. Under the circumstances, we find that the complainant is not left with any claim to put forth further and contest.

7.         In the light of the all above, we do not find any actionable merit in the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no orders as to its costs. However, the OP insurers shall provide the complainant with the evidence of Surrender value payment of 15.06.1991 in case they are required by the LIC Rules to preserve and hold such (past) records of the year 1991 (15.06.1991) up to the year 2014 (till the date of legal notice i.e. 30.08.2014).

8.          Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

                                                                            (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                      President

Announced:                                                            (Jagdeep Kaur)

December 31, 2015                                                         Member

*YP*