Case No. CC/ 56/2019
FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT
Sudeb Mitra, President:-
The complt’s case in short is that in 2009, the O.P. no 2 being the agent of the O.P. no 1, suggested the complt. to purchase the LIC’s (O.P. no 1) JEEBAN SARAL (with profit) policy of table 165 and suggested the complt. that if the complt. purchases that policy and pay the premium, as determined by the O.P. no 1, the complt. will get full benefit of Rs- 1,25,000/- on the maturity of that policy. This is asserted by the complt. that the complt. signed on some papers of the O.P. no 1 as produced to him by the O.P. no 2 and on payment of premium of Rs- 3,033/- and furnishing some documents besides his ‘Age Proof Certificate’, the complt. could obtain Jeeban Saral(with profit) policy of table no 165 and he was issued LI certificate bearing no 498540384 with it’s maturity date fixed on 28.03.2019.
It is complt’s case that since his obtaining the L.I. policy, as referred above, he had always paid up the premium in time from the date of initiation of the policy till the date of its maturity i.e. from 28.03.2009 till 28.03.2019 against proper receipts issued by the O.P. no 1 and the complt. paid Rs- 60,640/- as premium for the 10 yrs on assurance given by the O.P. no 2 that the complt. would get Rs- 1,25,000/- after deposit of the last premium for the policy, due from him to the O.P. no 1 .
This is the assertion of the complainant that on the depositing of the policy bond in the office of the O.P. no 1. The O.P. no 1 had sent him information vide letter dtd. 11.12.2018 that the maturity value of the policy would be of Rs- 27,003/-.
The complt. then contacted the O.P. no 2 who assured him that the matter would be duly settled to fix up the maturity value to be paid to the complt. to the tune of Rs- 1,25,000/-.
It is further asserted by the complainant in his instant complaint that the O.P. no 1 had not paid up the maturity value of his purchased LI policy inspite of his making payment of due premium in time uninterruptedly for 10 years since the time of his purchasing the said policy till it’s maturity. The complt. contended that his letter sent to the O.P. no 1 where the complt. demanded the sum assured from the O.P. no 1 to the tune of Rs- 1,25,000/- was responded by the O.P. no 1 vide letter dtd. 28.03.2019 where the O.P. no 1 categorically submitted that on maturity of that policy, the complt. would get maturity sum of Rs- 19,855/- + loyalty addition of Rs- 7,148/- and not Rs- 1,25,000/- as that would be payable only in death claims, as per stipulation of the complt’s purchased policy.
It is the specific case of the complainant that he had paid total premium of Rs- 60,640/- throughout the term of that policy till its maturity and on the other hand he would, in return, be getting Rs- 19,855 + 7,148/- which is far less than the amount of premium paid by him to the O.P. no 1 to run the LI policy purchased by him from the O.P. no 1 at the instance of the O.P. no 2.
By filing this complaint, the complt./petitioner has prayed for passing direction upon the O.Ps to pay him Rs- 1,25,000/- & interest & cost.
The O.P. no 2 was duly summoned & since he hadn’t contested even on getting chance in this complaint case, so this complaint case is fixed to be heard against him exparte vide order no 05 dtd. 20.08.2019 passed by this Commission.
The O.P. no 1 filed W.V., denied all the material allegations as averred by the complt. in this complaint and contended inter alia that after knowing all the particulars of the concerned policy the complt. had chosen to by that policy at L.I.C.’s JEEVAN SARAL(with profits) vide table no 165 for a term of 10 years on 28.03.2009 for a proposed death benefit sum assured of Rs- 1,25,000/- and for accidental benefit sum assured of that amount vide mode of premium of Rs- 3,032/- half yearly.
It is also contended by the O.P. no 1 that in the said policy the date of last premium was 28.09.2018 and date of maturity was 28.03.2019 as reflected in the policy. It is the specific case of the O.P. no 1 that the complt. purchased that policy at the age of 59 years and his D.O.B. is 30.05.1950 and on payment of first premium in that policy he was issued the L.I.C. policy by the O.P. no 1.
It is contended by the O.P. no 1 in it’s filed W.V. that the complt. was given all relevant papers from the end of the O.P. no 1 and the same clearly reflected all the terms and conditions of that policy and what the complt. would get on maturity of that policy in case he remains alive at that time and knowing all those pertinent facts, the complt. purchased that policy which is a high risk & term assurance plan and for that the present claim of the complt. is baseless and superfluous and meritless and deserving dismissal of complaint.
On consideration of the submissions of the contesting parties the following points are determined to be considered.
ISSUES / POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the complainant a consumer as per Sec 2(1)(d) clause ii of the C.P. Act of 1986?
- Has this Commission/Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint as per scopes of Sec 11 of the C.P. Act of 1986?
- Has the contesting O.P. no 1 caused any deficiency in service towards the complt. as alleged by the complt. and is the O.P. no 1 liable any way?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief(s) as prayed for in this complaint?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Issues No. 1 & 2:-
We take up both these two issues at first for consideration since the result of the same will determined whether the remaining issues of this case deserve consideration or not.
Heard the recriminations of the Ld. Counsels for the contesting parties over these two issues.
Having regard to the nature of roles played by the complt. and contesting O.P. o 1 of this complaint case against each other. We feel inclined to hold that complaint was recipients of services from the O.P. no 2 and was a beneficiary of that service and in consonance with the scopes of clause (ii) of the Sec 2(i) (d) of the C.P. Act of 1986 specially when the complt. had not hired the service of the O.P. no 1 of this complaint case for consideration, so far as this complaint case is concerned, we find that the complt. is consumer as per clause ii of sec 2(i)(d) of the C.P. Act of 1986.
This further reveals that in the C.P. Act of 1986 that the ambits and scopes of Sec 12 of the C.P. Act of 1986 reflects that the C.P. Act of 1986 doesn’t contain any provision for making a complaint before the district Forum/Commission on payment of court fees. Sec 30 of the C.P. Act of 1986 or any other provision of this Act of 1986 has not authorised the State government to levy court fees or application fees on the complaint for filing the complaint before the District Forum.
The amount demanded by the complt. from the contesting O.P. reveals that this Commission/Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with this complaint case, as per scopes of Sec 11 of the C.P. Act of 1986.
The addresses of the contesting parties in this complaint lend ground to hold that this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to deal with this complaint case, as per Sec 11 of the C.P. Act of 1986.
This complaint is not hit by U/Sec 24A of C.P. Act of 1986 and this is not hit by limitation.
Accordingly both these two issues no 1 & 2 are decided in favour of the complainant and are thus disposed of.
Issues No 3&4:-
At this stage both these two issues are taken up for discussion for the sake of convenience, brevity and to avoid repetition and prolixity. Besides both these two issues are inter related to each other a considerable extent.
The complt’s case and submissions reveal that the complt. purchased LI policy from the O.P. no 1 in the format of JEEVAN SARAL policy vide table no 165 and he had paid premium @ Rs- 3,033/- twice in each year for long 10 years from march 2009 to March 2019 and in that process paid total premium of Rs- 60,640/- towards the O.P. no 1 of this case till the maturity of the said scheme. It is the complt’s case that he was assured from the end of the O.Ps that after maturity of the said policy purchased by him, he would be paid Rs- 1,25,000/- but instead of giving that amount, the O.P. no 1 of this complaint case, has paid the complt. the matured value of the policy to the tune of Rs- 27,003/- and for that the O.P. no 1 of this complaint had committed deficiency in service and committed unfair trade practice with the complt., so the complt. has filed this complaint and sought for reliefs as reflected categorically in the prayer portion of the complaint.
This is forthcoming from the O.P. no 1’s contention that the scheme papers of the policy selected by the complt. purchaser of the said policy never reflected anywhere that the complt. would get maturity sum assured to the extent of Rs- 1,25,000/- rather it had reflected categorically that in that scheme of the LI policy purchased by the complt. at his advanced age, the maturity sum assured would be Rs- 19,855/- and at the maturity of that policy in this case, complainant was given the maturity sum assured plus loyalty addition of Rs- 7,148/- and therefore the complt. was given Rs- 27,003/-(19,855 + 7,148/-) i.e. Rs- twenty seven thousand and three in total.
The O.P. no 1, contesting in this case, asserted further that in that scheme of policy selected and purchased by the complt., the basic sum assured along with return of premium and loyalty addition is payable in death claim only which is not applicable to the complainant since he was alive at the time of the maturity of the particular LI policy, purchased by the complt. from the O.P. no 1.
On meticulous perusal of the contents of the LI policy, discharge voucher for maturity claim furnished by the O.P. no 1 dtd. 11.12.2018. We feel inclined to hold that the submission of the O.P. no 1 relates with the contents of the said LI policy, purchased by the complt., correctly and that has merit to be positively considered.
It is asserted by the O.P. no 1 further that at the time of purchasing of that particular LI policy, the complt. was furnished with all the relevant data and stipulations of payment of the matured sum assured and the complt. was given specific written information that Rs- 1,25,000/- should be given as death benefit sum assured only.
Nothing significant in reply to such assertion is forthcoming from the complt. to vindicate his claim which appears to have no basis on the existence of the particular insurance policy, the policy bond of that LI policy scheme purchased by the complt. as per his choice.
The amount given to the complt. as matured sum assured in that particular policy, purchased by the complt. as per his choice, tallied exactly with the amount assured to be given on maturity of that policy in case the insured remained alive and in fact it was categorically specified in the insurance policy and the complt. should have been aware of that fact as it was clearly reflected in the insurance policy obtained by him from the O.P. no 1 in the time of his purchasing the same from the O.P. no 1.
There appeared no concealment of material fact from the end of the O.P. no 1 on any aspect regarding what the complt. would get as maturity sum assured and since he remained alive at the time of the maturity of the particular insurance policy purchased by the complt., the complt. was given the exactly said amount by the O.P. no 1 plus the loyalty addition.
So there remains no ground to hold that the O.P. had practiced any unfair trade practice with the complt. and there existed no deficiency in service effectuated by the O.P. no 1 towards the complainant in this case as the complt. was kept categorically informed by the
O.P. no 1 as to the stipulations of making the payment of maturity sum assured towards the complt. by the O.P. no 1 if the complt. remains alive at the time of the maturity of the said policy and on maturity of the said policy, the O.P. no 1 had paid up the amount & loyalty amount payable maturity value to the complt. as he is alive at that time.
In the premises, the complt. couldn’t establish, for the reasons as explained above, that there was any unfair trade practice practised by the O.P. no 1 with the complt. and the complt. also couldn’t be found to have succeeded in vindicating that the O.P. no 1 of this complaint had effectuated deficiency in service towards the complainant in this case.
Accordingly the issues no 3 is decided against the complt. on this complaint and as a result of that complt. fails to get any relief in this complaint case from the O.P. no 1 who is solely contesting in this complaint.
In this backdrop, the issue no 4 is also not decided in favour of the complt. and in accordingly disposed of.
In the premises and circumstances, complt. in this case fails to establish that the reliefs sought by him from the O.P. side is sustainable in the eye of law as unassailable.
Accordingly this complaint case fails.
Hence it is…
ORDERED
That this complaint case no 56/2019 filed by the complainant Kanailal Ghosh is dismissed on contest but without cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the contesting parties of this complaint case, by hand/ by Regd. Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information and necessary action, as per law & relevant rules.
