Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/15/43

Avtar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Life Insurance Corporation of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Jarnail Singh Adv

05 Oct 2015

ORDER

ORDER

                                      MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Avtar Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)  against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’) praying for issuance of the following directions to them:-

i)       To pay double of the amount i.e Rs.80,000/-

ii)      To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment caused to him,

iii)     To pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses,

iv)     To pay interest @ 12% P.A. till realization of the above said amounts,

                                      OR

          To award any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit, in the interest of justice.

 

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that the O.P. No. 2 is the agent of the O.P. No. 1 and he is known to the O.P. No. 2. The O.P. No. 2 had come to him in his house and told him that there were plans of LIC, which were most beneficial and that he had to deposit single, lump sum amount, with the LIC, and he would get double of the amount after 5/6 years from the LIC of India. The O.P. No.2 allured him to get said type of plan. Accordingly, in the Month of March 1999, he paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the O.P. No. 2 and the O.P. No.2 had also taken his signatures on the blank policy forms, but at that he had not issued any receipt for the said amount received by him. He had approached the O.P. No.2 many times and demanded the policy document, but he put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Finally, he told him that he would get double of the amount from the O.P. No. 1 after 5/6 years. In the month of June 2002, he again approached the O.P. No.2 and demanded the policy papers from him. Then he had given only the policy number i.e. 161760333 and told him to approach the O.P. No.1 with regard to the said policy. Thereafter, in the month of July, 2002, he approached the O.P. No. 1 and enquired about his policy, but he was shocked to know that the policy was issued under another plan and 7 installments were due against him and the policy had got lapsed. He was further told that if he wants to revive the policy, then he has to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/-. It is further stated that the policy, which was stated to be issued, was for a period of 14 years. He is a poor person and has no money to further deposit the same with the O.P. No. 1 to revive the policy. He had got a policy of one time deposit from the O.Ps. and as per directions of the O.P. No.2, he had deposited Rs.40,000/- with the O.Ps. towards single premium. He had requested the O.P. No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.40,000/-, but the O.P. No.1 told him that if he wants to withdraw his amount then he should approached them only after 14 years i.e after the expiry of the policy period i.e. in the year 2015. He had requested the O.Ps. to supply him the policy documents, but they have not supplied the same and it was only on 21.04.2015 that the O.P.No.1 had provided him the details of the policy. He had requested the O.Ps. many times to settle the claim but of no use. The above said acts of the O.Ps. amount to deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice, due to which he has suffered mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss. Hence, this complaint.

 

3.                On being put to notice, the O.P. No. 1 filed written version in the shape of affidavit of Ms. Hem Lata, Manager (Legal), taking preliminary objections; that the complaint against the answering O.P. is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint against the answering O.P.; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain & try the instant complaint; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering O.P. and that the complaint is barred by time. On merits, it is admitted that the O.P. No. 2 is the agent of the answering O.P. and that policy No. 161760333 was allotted to the policy holder by it. It is stated that the policy in question was issued for the sum assured of Rs.3,50,000/- on 28.3.1999 under Conventional Endowment Plan 14-15; rather than single premium plan, under which the premium of Rs.6559/- was to be paid quarterly for 15 years. The policy in question was issued as per the proposal papers signed & filled in by the policy holder. The next premium due under the policy was for the month of September, 2000 and it is lying in lapsed condition. The policy had run for a period of 1 year & 6 months only. A policy acquires paid-up value when full 3 years premium has been paid, therefore, nothing is payable under the policy in question. It is further stated that the policy in question was handed over to the agent of the policy holder, but no record regarding the same is available with the answering O.P. as the same has already been destroyed as per circular of destruction of old record provided by the controlling office. All the details were provided to the policy holder when he had visited the office of the answering O.P. and he was also told about all the conditions for revival of the policy in question, but he did not bother about the same. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof with costs, the same being without any merit.

 

4.                The O.P. No. 2 filed a separate written version in the shape of his affidavit admitting therein that he knows the complainant and he had visited him at his house for canvassing about LIC policy. It is denied that he had ever told the complainant about single premium policy. It is stated that he had canvassed the complainant about an Endowment policy in regular quarterly mode premium of Rs.6559/- and policy No. 161760333 was issued to him. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied.

 

5.                On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Ex. C1, photocopies of documents Ex. C2 to Ex. C3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 1 tendered affidavit of Ms Hem Lata, Manager (Legal) Ex.OP-1, photocopies of documents  Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-7 and closed the evidence, whereas no evidence was led by the O.P. No. 2.

 

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant & the O.P. No.1 and Sh. Ajaib Singh i.e. the O.P. No.2 and gone through the record of the file carefully.

 

7.                The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the   O.P. No.2 i.e. the Agent of the O.P. No.1 visited the house of the complainant and told him that there was a most beneficial plan of LIC and for which he had to deposit lump sum amount with the LIC, for a single time and he would get double of the said amount after Five/ Six  years from the LIC of India. Being allured by the said version of the O.P. No.2, in the Month of March 1999, he paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- to        him    for purchase of the insurance policy, having a single          premium,  from   the

O.P. No.1, but he had not issued any receipt for the same. The O.P. No.2 also took his signatures on the blank policy forms. He had approached the O.P. No.2 for so many times and demanded the policy document, but the same was not provided to him and finally it was told to him that he would get double of the amount from the O.P. No.1 after 5/6 years. In the month of June 2002, he again approached the O.P. No.2 for getting the policy papers, but instead of providing the same, he had given only the policy number and told him to approach the O.P. No.1 with regard to the said policy.

 

8.                Sh. Ajaib Singh i.e. the O.P. No.2 submitted that he being the agent of the LIC of India, had visited the house of the complainant and told him about the conventional endowment plan and he himself had put his signatures on the proposal form and had paid premium amount of Rs.6559/- only to the LIC, for issuance of the policy in question. The LIC had duly issued receipt regarding payment of the said  premium amount. He vehemently denied regarding payment of Rs.40,000/- to him by the complainant and prayed that complaint being devoid of merit be dismissed with cost. 

 

9.                As per version of the complainant, he had paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- in the month of March 1999, but the O.P. No.2 did not issue any receipt to him. It may be stated here that if the complainant had any grievance against the O.P. No.2 regarding non-issuance of any receipt for the said amount, then he could have filed the complaint for redressal of his grievance against him, within two years from the date, on which the cause of action had arisen to him, as per section 24 (A) of the Act.  At this stage, the complaint filed against him is not maintainable, being barred by limitation.

 

10.              The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the other grievance of the complainant is that when he had not received any policy document from the O.Ps. then he approached the O.P. No.2 for providing the same, but the same was not provided to him and instead, only policy number i.e. 161760333 was given to him. In the month of July, 2002, he approached the O.P. No.1 and enquired about the policy, but he was surprised to know that the policy was issued under another plan for a term of 14 years and 7 installments were due against the said policy, due to which the policy stood lapsed. He was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- to get the same revived. He had shown his inability to pay the said amount and requested for refund of the amount of Rs.40,000/- deposited by him towards single premium, then the employee of O.P. No.1 told him that the said amount could only be refunded after the expiry of the policy period of 14 years i.e. in the year 2015. He further submitted that after receipt of the policy details on 21.4.2015, he requested the O.P. No. 1 to settle the claim but it did nothing. Thus, the O.P. No.1 be directed to pay Rs.80,000/- i.e. double of the amount of Rs.40,000/- deposited by him alongwith compensation for mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss suffered by him and also the litigation expenses.

11.              The learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 submitted that the policy Ex. OP-6 was issued in the name of the complainant on 31.3.1999 and the premium of Rs.6559/-under the said policy was to be paid quarterly. However, the complainant had paid the premium regularly uptill March, 2000 and the cheque towards the premium due for the month of September, 2000 was dishonoured and inspite of request made for payment of the said premium amount, the complainant had not deposited the same, accordingly, the policy stood lapsed w.e.f. September, 2000 and nothing is payable to him, as per terms & conditions of the policy, therefore, the complaint being devoid of merit be dismissed with costs. In support of his stand, the learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case—‘Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Mani Ram’ 2005 (3)RCR (CIVIL) 582 wherein it has been held that if the premium was not paid before the expiry of the grace period, the policy would lapse and no claim is maintainable.

 

12.              So far as the allegation of the complainant that he had paid a lumpsum amount of Rs.40,000/- to the O.Ps. for purchase of policy, as alleged in the complaint, it may be stated here that not even an iota of evidence has been placed on record by him, to prove the fact that he had actually paid a lumpsum amount of Rs.40,000/- to any of the O.Ps., Therefore, we do not hesitate to conclude that the allegation to that effect is merely an allegation. However, from the copy of policy document, Ex. OP6, it is evident that policy No. 161760333 under Plan Endowment 14-15 for the sum assured of Rs.3,50,000/- was issued on 28.3.1999 in the name of the complainant under which premium amount of Rs.6559/- was to be paid quarterly uptill 28.12.2013. These facts even find mentioned in the status report of the policy in question, placed on record by the complainant himself as Ex.C2. From the copies of Premium Paid Certificates Ex. C3, it is evident that after issuance of the policy in question, the complainant had paid premium amount quarterly uptil 6/2000. However, from the copy of Cheque Dishonour Advice Ex. OP-3 and the copy of letter dated 24.1.2001 regarding intimation of dishonoured cheque, Ex.OP-4, it is evident that the cheque deposited for payment of the premium amount for the month of September, 2000 was dishonoured and the complainant was requested to deposit the premium amount alongwith interest. Since the complainant had not paid the premium amount due w.e.f. Septermber, 2000 onwards, therefore, the policy stood lapsed and the same has not been been got revived. As per Term No.4 of the terms & conditions of the policy, Ex. OP6, if after atleast 3 full years premiums have been paid in respect of the policy, any subsequent premium be duly not paid, this policy shall not be wholly void but the sum assured by itself be reanced as sum asshaee fear the same ratio to be the full sum assured the not shall subsist as a paid-up policy for a reduced sum payable on the date of maturity or at the life assured’s prior death provided the paid-up sum as assured is not less than Rs.250/-. Since in the present case, the complainant had paid the premium amount for a period of 1 year & 6 months only, therefore as per above said Term No.4 of the terms & conditions of the policy, he is not even entitled to payment of paid-up value under the policy.

13.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint being without any merit is dismissed. The parties are left to bear costs of their own.

 

14.              The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                           (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated 05.10.2015                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                     MEMBER.