Date of filing: 27.05.2016                                                                         Date of disposal: 22.11.2017

Complainant: Parvin Begum, W/o. Sk. Sirajuddin, resident of Chotonilpur Madhyapara, P.O.-

                          Sripally, P.S. & Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713101.

-VERSUS-

Opposite Party: 1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Micro Insurance Department, Asansol

                                  Division, represented by its Chief Manager, having its office at ‘Jeevan

                                  Prakash”, G.T.Road, Town, P.O. & P.S.-Asansol, Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713304.

                              2. East Berth Nandanik Samaj Kalyan Kendra, Code No.83002R046,

                                   represented by its Secretary, Debu Chakraborty, having its office at

                                  Anandapally, Kalitala, P.O.-Sripally, Town, P.S. & Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-

                                  713103.

                          3.  Tarun Kumar Halder, Agent Code-242, S/o. Late Hazarilal Halder, Resident

                                  of Rathtala, P.O.-Kanchannagar Baraduari, P.S. & Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-

                                  713102.

Present: Hon’ble President: Smt.Jayanti Maitra(Ray).

    Hon’ble Member:  Nivedita Ghosh.

Appeared for the Complainant             : Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.

Appeared for the Opposite Party No.1: Sourabh Dey .

Appeared for the Opposite Party No.2: Ld. Advocate Subrata Ghosh.

Appeared for the O.P. No.3 : None.

JUDGEMENT

This is a case U/s.  12 of  the C.P.  Act for  an award  directing the O.Ps.  to pay a sum of Rs.8,420/- as remaining amount along with 12% upon the maturity amount, to pay compensation of Rs.70,000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment and to pay  litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant.

The complainant’s short case in hand is that she is a semi literate house wife and belongs to a poor family.  The O.P. No.2 is an NGO.  The O.P. No.2 convinced the complainant regarding inception of insurance policy from the O.P. No.1.  The O.P. No.2 & 3 received the premium of Rs.500/- from the complainant and O.P. No.1 issued five Life Insurance Policy bearing No.467535384, 467535385, 467535386, 467535387 & 467535388.  The policies commenced from 15.9.2008 and the maturity date was 15.9.2013.  The total sum assured of those policies was Rs.30,000/-. It is also important to mention here that the premium amount of each policy was Rs.100/-.  The O.P. No.3 is the agent of O.P. No.1.

The complainant further stated that the O.P. No.3 used to collect the premium amount from the complainant on each and every month but did not provide any documents, receipts to the complainant in respect of the said policies inspite of several request.  After lapse of one year the O.P. No.2 & 3 supplied a premium acknowledgement book to the complainant in the month of September, 2009.  From the acknowledgment the complainant came to know that a sum of Rs.6000/- has been mentioned as Brought Forwarded (B/F).  Thereafter on 3.8.2013 the O.P. No.3 collected the premium amount and on each and every time the O.P. No.1 & 3 made their endorsement in the Premium Acknowledgment Book.

After expiry of the maturity period the complainant several times visited office of the O.Ps. with a request to disburse the maturity amount to her but neither the O.P. No.1 nor O.P. No.2 & 3 paid any heed to such request.  Finding no other alternative the complainant sent a notice under the provision of Right to Information Act, 2005 to the O.P. No.1 on 24.8.2015.  In connection with the said notice the O.P. No.1 sent two letter dated 10.6.2015 and 29.8.2015 to the complainant. From the said letters the complainant came to know that O.P. No.2 & 3 deposited Rs.23,500/- in her policy account.  Complainant also came to know that the O.P. No.1 delivered all the original policy bond to the O.P. No.2 on 18.11.2018.  After several request the O.P. No.1 paid Rs.21,580/- to the complainant on 18.2.2015 but remains Rs.8,420/- has not been paid by the O.P. No.1 till date of filing of this case.

The complainant is a bonafide customer of the O.Ps. and she never done any detrimental to the interest of the O.Ps.   Inspite of that the O.P. No.2 & 3 have done unfair trade practice by way of keeping the original documents in their custody till date of filing of this complaint. Finding no other alternative the complainant compelled to file this case before this Forum for relief as stated above.

The O.P. No.1 contested this case by filing written version stating inter-alia that the alleged claim of the complainant from the O.P. No.1 is untenable, misconceived and vexatious and the complainant is not entitled to get the alleged amount of the compensation as prayed for.

The O.P. No.1 also stated that O.P. No.3, Tarun Kumar Halder is not an authorized agent of the O.P. Nol.1, LICI.  The O.P. No.2, East Berth Nandanik Samaj Kalyan Kendra, is the actual agent of the O.P. No.1.  The O.P. No.1 does not make any endorsement in premium acknowledgement book.  The authorized agent of the O.P. No.1 who makes the endorsement in premium acknowledgment book when the amount deposited by the agent in the cash counter of this O.P.  The renewal premium receipt is issued by the O.P. No.1.  The O.P. No.1 usually makes the payment to the policy holder after getting all the require documents.  If delay is there on the part of the O.P. No.1,delayed payment interest is paid.  But if the all the require documents are not submitted in time, the O.P. is helpless to make the payment in time.  As per policy condition the maturity value is payable on the basis of premium paid.  In all the five policies (No.467535384, 467535385, 467535386, 467535387 & 467535388) the policies were in reduce paid-up condition. Be it mentioned here that 47 installments were received out of 60 installments.  Hence, the maturity value proportionately reduced and paid-up value with vested bonus was paid.  So, the payment was made correctly.

The O.P. LICI submits that on the basis of the premium paid and as per the condition of the policy the payment was made to the complainant, Parvin Begum. The O.P. No.1 is not in a position to make further payment since no further amount is payable on the part of the LICI.  The question of interest does not arise.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the instant case with cost.

The O.P. No.2 also contested the case by filing written version stating that the O.P. No.2 has been working as an agent under the O.P. No.1 and has been performing their duties thereby collecting the premium from the policy holders through their selected persons like the O.P. No. 3 and has been depositing the same to the O.P. No.1 through their software system. The men of the O.P. No.2 collected the premium from the policy holders and all the premiums were deposited by this O.P. to the account of LICI, which were acknowledged by the O.P. No.1.  so, it is very clear that this O.P. has been performing their duties in proper manner as well as with reputation.  As such there is no question of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of this O.P. as alleged by the complainant.  The complainant has unnecessarily made them a party to this case, for which the fame and reputation of this O.P. has been destroyed. 

This O.P. further begs to submit that being the Non-Government Organisation under the guidelines of IRDA, this O.P. has been providing their services to the remote villages to the poor people and as such this O.P. since beginning has reached sometimes first, second, third, fourth or fifth place for selling their micro insurance policies all over India and all the certificates issued by LICI are carefully kept in the custody.  It is noteworthy that inspite of repeated request the LICI till this date did not inform to this O.P. about how much amount this O.P. deposited before the LICI as premiums.  The LICI did not pay the due commission to this O.P. which they are entitled to receive as agent of the O.P. No.1.  Finding no other alternative to unveil the real truth this O.P. has already filed a Writ Petition bearing No. W.P. (W)7905 of 2011 before the Hon’ble High Court, Kolkata, against the Union of India, IRDA Chairman of LICI, MD (Micro) LIC & Others, which is still pending.   There is no  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of this O.P. and as such the complaint petition filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed in limit.

DECISION WITH REASONS

To prove his case the complainant has filed evidence on affidavit and O.P. submits to adopt his written version as his evidence.  The written version is also supported by affidavit.  The O.P. No.2 also filed evidence on affidavit and O.P. No.1 & 3 did not file any evidence on affidavit.  The complainant filed two sets of questionnaires on evidence of O.P. No.1 & 2.  The O.P. No.1 & 2 also filed their reply separately.  Thereafter argument is heard  from both sides.  The complainant filed premium acknowledgment book.  He also filed the bank document showing payment of premium to O.P., LICI, Asansol and the letter of O.P. dated 8.12.2015 stating that the premium acknowledgment book shows 48 installments were collected by NGO and 47 of them were deposited in the office of O.P. out of 60 installments payable and copy of letter of O.Ps. dated 10.6.2015 shows that five policies were issued in the name of the complainant started from 15.9.2008.  Actually, premium money were deposited by the agent.  That as per the O.P. Insurance Company the total money deposited in five policies was Rs.23,500/-.  That authenticate duplicate copies of the said policies were issued on 15.9.2008 and those policies were delivered by hand to the NGO, East Berth Nandanik Samaj Kalyan Kendra on 18.11.2008.  The letter dated 10.6.2015 is a answer to the questionnaires of complainant and information provided under the RTI Act of 2005.  O.P. files documents like Xerox copies of five polices, claim data sheet of them, copies of voutures issued by LICI, copy of letter dated 29.8.2015 and 10.6.2015 sent to the complainant by the O.P.

On perusal of the evidence on record and documents filed by the parties as well as hearing argument advanced by the parties this Forum came to the following points.

The complainant claims that he paid all the installments for the five policies totaling Rs.30,000/- but O.P. only make payment of Rs.21,580/- and there is a short fall of Rs.8,420/- which the O.P. refused to make payment on the allegation that thirteen installments were due for making payments by the complainant out of total sixty installments payable.  The O.P. No. 1 also stated this fact in their written version and in para-14 giving an account of 47 installments for the five policies totaling Rs.21,580/- but O.P. No.1 never made any specific denial stating specifically the period for which the complainant became defaulter in making payment of 13 installments, specifically mentioning the year and month of such defaulter.    O.P. No.1 never did convey the same by way of any correspondence/notice to the complainant which amounted to deficiency in service.  Admittedly no notice was served upon the complainant asking to pay the arrear installments with penalty/fine.  The policy continued inspite of petitioner defaulter in payment of premium.  Even O.P. also denied that they have supplied any acknowledgement book showing payment by the complainant.  The complainant submits that this premium acknowledgement book was received after about one year and there is mentioning of Rs.6000/- as brought forward (B/F) and total 48 installments are showing with due date with receiving seal and signature.  The premium acknowledgement book shows total payment of Rs.30,000/- including brought forwarded Rs.6000/-.  We do not find anything to disbelieve this fact O.P. alleges that this premium acknowledgement book is a manufactured one.  Questionnaires put to the O.P. No.1 about payment on each and every month by the agent which the O.P. No.1 replied in negative and they also denied issuance of premium acknowledgment book.  Then the question put whether the O.P. No.1 has taken any legal action against the agent or not, for issuance of such acknowledgement book fraudulently.  The reply is in negative.  Whether the O.P. No.1 made any query against the mater, the answer is ‘not applicable’.  Only there is answer that thirteen monthly installments are due but there is no mention for the period specifically.  For which the dues arises.  The O.P. No.1 also put questionnaire whether any installments was given to the complainant about such non-payment, the answer is evasive stating that ‘installments was given through micro insurance agent by software package’.  Therefore, the O.P. No.1 has no document to show that complainant did not pay the thirteen installments.  No counter part of receipt or any other documents or any letter, notice to that fact for non-payment of premium, are produced by the O.P. No.1 and all the policies were continued.  Insurance company might have produce evidence to deny that complainant was defaulter.  Therefore, the O.P. fails to discharge the onus by any convincing evidence that complainant was defaulter in making 13 installments out of total 60 installments.

            O.P. make payment of Rs.21,580/- instead of Rs.30,000/- of total assured amount under the policies.  The complainant in his evidence supported by affidavit stated that he had already paid all the documents and he shows the acknowledgment book.  So, such payment of Rs.6000/- in total with a note on the premium book brought forwarded Rs.6000/- with seal and signature of the recipient.

The O.P. No.2 also in his evidence admitted that IRDA has allowed NGO, self-help group, micro finance institution as micro insurance agent of LICI for insurance product.  During the argument Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. also  submits that they collect the premium through their sub-agent who are also NGO and self-help group.  The premium acknowledgment book shows the date, seal and signature of 47 installments receipt through O.P. No.3 and also admitted by the O.P. No.1, LICI that 47 installments has been received.  So, this Forum cannot disbelieve the fact of payment of Rs.6000/- which is shown as ‘B/F’ at the right hand corner of the said premium acknowledgement book and Rs.30,000/- is shown as total sum received in that premium acknowledgement book with seal and signature.  Therefore, complainant has been able to prove his case by evidence of PW-1 as well as by documentary evidence that he paid all the sixty installments to the LICI through the agent of O.P. No.2 but he received only Rs.21,580/- as matured amount instead of Rs.30,000/-.  The complainant also has been able to prove that he is entitled to receive the remaining amount of Rs.8,420/-.  The LICI is deficient in service and by not making payment of Rs.8,420/- to the petitioner  inspite of repeated demand of the complainant.  In the light of our above discussions we allow the complaint petition. 

Court fees paid is correct.  Hence, it is

Ordered

that the consumer complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps.  The O.P. No.1 is directed to make payment of Rs.8,420/- to the complainant along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of maturity i.e. from 15.9.2013 to till realization of the same.  The O.P. No.1 is also directed to make compensation of Rs.3000/- to the complainant for mental pain, agony and harassment for which he suffered for non-payment of the remaining amount.  The O.P. No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.2000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.  The above directions be complied with within 45 days from this date of order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order in accordance with law.

Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.

                         Jayanti Maitra (Ray)

             Dictated and corrected by me.                                                         President       

                                                                                                                  D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan

                   Jayanti Maitra (Ray)                   

                           President

                   D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan

                                                                      (Nivedita Ghosh)

Member

D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan