DATE OF FILING: 05.01.2016.
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 05.05.2018.
Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, President.
The complainant Hadubandhu Nayak has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that while serving at Koraput he purchased a policy bearing No. S10716068, date of commencement 09.12.1966, date of maturity 09.12.1996 for sum assured Rs.10,000/- from O.Ps. The O.P.No.2 settled the claim in the year 2012 by issuing a cheque bearing cheque No. 802069 dated 10.02.2012 for Rs.18,039/- after submitting the requirement by the complainant on 08.02.2012. But the O.P.No.1 did not allow any penal interest and delayed interest on the assured amount. After receipt of the above amount, the complainant claimed further interest on the assured amount from the date of maturity till payment of the matured amount i.e. for more than 16 years and sent a letter through registered post to the O.P.No.1 on 30.04.2014. Nothing has been replied satisfactorily, the complainant asked the O.P.No.1 under RTI Act, 2005 on 07.07.2014 and subsequently, the O.Ps paid an penal interest of Rs.364/- for delay in settlements of maturity claim through a cheque bearing No.44952 dated 10.09.2014. The complainant received the cheque on protest and submitted an acknowledgement of cheque on protest on dated 15.09.2014 and sent the same through registered post. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay 12% interest per annum of matured amount of policy, compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.19,800/- in the best interest of justice.
3. Upon notice the O.Ps filed written version/argument through his advocate. It is stated that complainant offered proposal on 13.11.1966 to get life assurance under the plan “Endowment Assurance with profits” for a sum assured Rs.10,000/- and after verification of all the required documents submitted with the proposal form and also after fulfillment of all other formalities as required for time purposes, the O.P.No.1 accepted the proposal of the complainant and issued policy No.S10716068, date of commencement 20.12.1966, installment premium payable Rs.27.71 paisa due dates of maturity 20.12.1996. Moreover one of the conditions of the said policy for settlement of claim is ‘Even on the happen, of which sum assured payable: on the stipulated date of maturity if the life assured is then alive or at his death if earlier”. The O.P.No.1 being the Branch office and O.P.No.2 & 3 being the Divisional office of Bhubaneswar and Berhampur Division respectively, are functioning life Insurance business of LIC of India and accordingly they are circumscribed to the certain rules and regulations in dealing with the insurance business. In the present case the complainant, who claims penal interest and delayed interest besides other reliefs, has claimed the paid up value paid before the policy premium received up to including April 1993, but the terms of maturity of the said policy was 20.12.1996. Since the premiums of the policy was paid up to the dates of maturity i.e. on 20.12.1996, LIC release the paid up value to the claimant amount in respects of the above policy and submitted the required documents before the O.P.No.1 on 01.12.2011 in belated stage. After verification of documents the claim of the complainant was settled under the first condition ‘Even on the happening of which sum assured payable on the stipulated date of maturity if the life assured is then alive’ on 11.02.2012 and the paid up value amount of Rs.18,039/- was paid to the complainant by way of cheque as per the said condition. Later on another amount of Rs.364/- was paid on 10.09.2014 to the complainant towards interest as per his claim. The said interest was paid considering the delay of 66 days caused in between date of application for settlement of paid up value claim and payment thereof. So the O.Ps are not at fault in settlement of the paid amount at Rs.18,039/- and payment of another amount of Rs.364/- as penal interest thereon. As per the scheme of the policy taken by the complainant the sum assured is payable on the happening of two events i.e. (1) on the stipulated date of maturity/ if the life assured is then alive or (2) at his death if earlier, in the first event the claim should be made for maturity amount by the policy holder itself and in the later the claim should be made for the sum assured by the successors of the policy holder. But in both the cases the claimant must submit the claim application alongwith required documents to settle the claim, otherwise it is not open for the O.Ps to settle the policy in any manner whatsoever. But in the instant case since there was no such claim under any of the above events, it was the only option for those O.Ps to set apart the said maturity amount in respect of above policy as unclaimed account. The O.Ps cannot go beyond the terms and conditions of the policy as well as rules and regulations of the company. Though the complainant submitted the necessary claim form coupled with the required documents on 01.12.2011 before O.P.No.1 for settlement of claim, but was open for him to submit the said form alongwith required documents before O.P.No.1 after the policy matured on 09.12.1996. But the complainant without choosing to submit his claim immediate after maturity has submitted after a long period of 16 years and by suppressing this fact he has come up with this petition to enrich himself taking advantage of his own fault. The complainant has not made any averments explaining as to why he did not claim the maturity amount during such a long period of 16 years. Very cunningly he has made the averments and allegations only to gain money illegally by shifting his own fault upon this O.Ps. It would be the case of complainant to claim the penal interest and delayed interest for such a long period of 16 years if he were approached and submitted the necessary claim form alongwith all required documents including policy bond before the O.Ps for settlement of the claim immediate after maturity of the policy and if the same were not taken in to consideration by the O.Ps. But in the instant case the complainant’s case is not so that he could allege the same to make out a case of negligence and deficiency in services on the part of these O.Ps. As such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed in this petition, as no one should be compensated for his own wrong. The money was held up by the competent court during the pendency of the litigation and without any order of the vigilance court the complainant is not entitled to get any money so also the LIC is not liable to pay any money to the complainant as claimed for. There is no legal sanction for granting any money to the complainant as claimed for only to harass, prejudice the O.Ps the case is filed. Hence the O.Ps prayed to dismiss the case.
4. On the date of final hearing learned counsel for the complainant as well as O.Ps are present. Heard the arguments and perused the record, citation and scrutinized the documents placed on record as evidence filed by both parties. It reveals from the record that complainant submitted the necessary claim form coupled with required documents on 1.12.2011 though the complainant’s policy matured on 9.12.1996. It also reveals from the document that due to vigilance case before the Hon’ble Special Judges Berhampur some of the documents of the complainant were seized for which he did not able to submit the documents soon after the maturity. Therefore the claim of the complainant to receive the interest from the date of maturity as claimed in his complaint is not tenable under the rules and regulations of the LIC of India which is beyond the terms and conditions of the policy. The O.P. has paid Rs.18,039/- on 11.02.2012 by way of cheque to the complainant and another amount of Rs.364/- was also paid on 10.09.2014 as penal interest for 66 days by the O.Ps. As the O.Ps have already released the maturity value of the policy alongwith penal interest of Rs.364/- as such the O.Ps are not negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence in our considered view there is no deficiency and liability on the part of the O.Ps. 5. Considering the factual position of the case, the complainant’s case is dismissed against the Opposite Parties on contest without cost.
The order is pronounced on this day of 5th May 2018 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
