Complaint has been received by remand. Complainant Rakesh Kumar Mahajan through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to change his policy into 5 years under LIC Pension Scheme and also to pay Rs.12,000/- per month to him as allured by the opposite parties and by converting the said Policy, the amount of Rs.43,575/- would also be deposited in the said policy. The opposite parties be further directed to pay compensation and litigation expenses to him, in the interest of justice.

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that the opposite party no.3 well known to him and serving as Field Officer in the office of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Gurdaspur and he while serving in this office has made his policy which was to be matured in the month of June 2015. On the date of maturity of the policy, the opposite party no.3 visited his house and allured him that their policy has been matured and there is suitable and very profitable another policy in which if the matured amount of the policy of Rs.12,88,575/- would be deposited in the said policy which is known as Pension Scheme, then he will receive Rs.12,000/- per month for a continuous period of 5 years and after 5 years, he can receive the maturity amount of the said policy which he has deposited Rs.12,88,575/-. Opposite party no.3 also allured that the said amount of Rs.12,000/- per month would be debited in his account on every month. He has further pleaded that he came into his talks and he has given consent for taking said Pension Policy and even the opposite party no.3 has taken the cheque of Rs.12,88,575/- from him on 1.7.2015 of Corporation Bank, Branch Gurdaspur but acting arbitrarily, the opposite party no.3 with the active connivance of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 have illegally and by way of fraudulent manner has only deposited Rs.12,45,000/- instead of Rs.12,88,575/- and even the opposite parties have illegally and fraudulently put the abovesaid amount in the policy known as Jeevan Akshay-VI Table No.189 for “F-Annuity for Liferet of P.Price on Death”. As per the said policy he shall have to receive Rs.7460/- per month only and he will not be able to receive the amount deposited throughout his life, since the policy would be activated after his death. He has next pleaded that the opposite party no.3 with the active connivance of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 have illegally got registered the said policy at the Branch Office at Ropar, since the opposite party no.3 is having links with the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and is also having residence at Ropar. The opposite parties were fully aware that if they will get register the said policy at Gurdaspur, then their illegal act would not come behind the curtains. Since he has invested huge amount with LIC as such he started approaching the opposite party no.3 for taking the Policy Cover Note, but the opposite party no.3 have given the same to him few days ago when he had visited the house of the opposite party no.3. He issued a legal notice to all the opposite parties for their illegal and wrongful act and conduct and after receipt of legal notice dated 14.9.2015 the opposite parties sent the receipt of the first premium by post on 18.9.2015. The act of the opposite parties to illegally and fraudulently not deposited the sum of Rs.43,575/- in the said policy and to change the modem of the  said policy from 5 years of Life time and for granting only Rs.7460/- instead of Rs.12,000/- is altogether wrong, illegal, null and void. Hence this complaint.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties no.1 and 2 appeared and filed their joint written reply through their counsel by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts from this Forum and the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The policy bearing no.165819119 under Plan 189 was issued to the complainant by opposite party no.1 with terms and conditions printed therein the policy bond. There is no such policy under which after depositing Rs.12,88,775/- will fetch a pension Rs.12,000/- per month and no fraud has been committed with the complainant as the total amount of Rs.12,88,775/- was adjusted towards single premium, out of that a sum of Rs.43,575/- has been adjusted towards Service Tax, which is statutory binding upon the LIC. On merits, it was submitted that Sh.Ram Singh Saini is working as an agent of branch office of Ropar and he has procured the proposal form from Sh.Rakesh Kumar Mahajan for purchasing Annuity Policy bearing No.165819119 under Jeevan Akshay’ Plan VI Table 189 for option F. It was next submitted that as per the option mentioned in the proposal form, complainant has been issued with the policy. There is no such option available with the LIC under which after depositing Rs.12,88,775/- will fetch pension @ Rs.12,000/- per month. The amount of Rs.12,88,775/- adjusted towards the abvesaid policy. The total amount adjusted towards single premium and service tax i.e. Rs.12,45,000/- towards single premium and Rs.43,575/- towards ‘Service Tax’ respectively. The opposite parties have put the said amount in Jeevan Akshay VI-Table 189 for ‘F’ Annuity, as per the proposal form signed by the complainant and he is getting Rs.7460/- per month as per terms and conditions of the policy. As regards to registering of policy at Ropar instead of Gurdaspur, once the proposal has been signed and filled in at Branch Office Ropar, policy has to be issued by the same branch office. However, the place of issuance of policy does not matter as terms and conditions f the policy will remain same throughout India. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

4.      Upon notice, the opposite party 3 appeared and filed its written reply through its counsel by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum; the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts from this Forum and the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The policy bearing no.165819119 under Plan 189 was issued to the complainant by opposite party n.1 with terms and conditions printed therein the policy bond. There is no such policy under which after depositing Rs.88,775/- which will carry a pension Rs.12,000/- per month. No fraud has been committed with the complainant as the total amount of Rs.12,88,775/- was adjusted towards single premium, out of that a sum of Rs.43,575/- has been adjusted towards Service Tax, which is statutory binding upon the LIC. On merits, it was admitted that opposite party was serving as Sr.Branch Manager in the office of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office Gurdaspur and like other, the complainant was also esteemed policy holder and his policy got matured on June, 2015. Now the opposite party has retired and is working as Insurance Advisor for the Corporation since April 1998 under Branch Office Ropar. It has further submitted that on the maturity f the policy in question, the complainant visited the Branch Office, Gurdaspur and gathered all the information about the pension plan from there only. Then he called the opposite party to purchase the pension plan for himself out of the maturity amount, payable to him. No fraud has been played upon the complainant as he himself handed over the cheque amounting to Rs.12,88,575/- for the purchase of pension policy after understanding the terms and conditions of the pension plan. The whole amount adjusted against the proposal as per the bifurcation i.e. Rs.12,45,000/- towards premium and Rs.43,575/- towards the service tax. Since the service tax is statutory binding upon the Corporation and one has to abide by the same. Moreover, the best available option for annuity was given to the proposer as he himself had opted and mentioned in the Proposal Form. Further more, the complainant is withdrawing the pension of Rs.7460/- continuously since June,2015, which shows the malafide intention on the part of the complainant just to harass the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

5.       Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith other documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence.

6.    Counsel for the opposite parties no.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Yoginder Singh Sisodia Manager Legal Ex.OP-1,2/1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP1,2/2 to Ex.OP-1,2/9 and closed the evidence.

7.     Counsel for the opposite party no.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Ram Singh Saini Ex.OP-3/1 alongwith other documents Ex.P-3/2 to Ex.OP-3/7 and closed the evidence.

8.     We have thoroughly examined the available documents/evidence on the records so as to interpret the meaning and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference on account of some documents ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants measured against the back-drop of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for their respective litigating clients. We find that the present dispute has arisen at the ‘inadvertent’ issuance (to the extent of ‘fraudulent’ as alleged by the complainant) of the Insurance Policy in question with the governing ‘terms’ different & varying from the ones ‘promised’ (and/or as ‘explained’ & made to be understood) and also as per those applied for in the proposal form by the OP1 & OP2 LIC service providers at the un-ethical instance of the OP3 LIC Ropar Branch Adviser. The glaring gap ‘difference’ between the two sets of ‘varying-terms’ pertains to the ‘prime’ parameters of the Policy (such as plan-Term, returns-Volume & final-Repayment etc) altering the very character ‘basics’ of the Policy and thus turning the same to be disputably ‘un-acceptable’. As per the complainant, one maturity amount of Rs.12.88 Lac of his maturing policy was invested in a fresh policy with terms neither acceptable nor ever opted out by him. 

9.       We find that the complainant as per the proposal Form 440 (Ex.OP1, 2/2) had applied for the LIC’s Jeevan Akshay-II (Table No. 163) Policy on 25.06.2015 whereas the opposite party LIC insurers have issued him (Ex.C2) an undated Policy 165818119 with its date of commencement as 28.06.2015 under the LIC’s Jeevan Akshay–VI (Table No. 189) @ proposal No. 1411 dated 29.06.2015 (produced here Ex.OP1,2/2 of 25.06.2015). Further, the OP insurers have failed to prove through some cogent evidence that the complainant had forehand consented to receive Rs.7,460/- per month ( 7 % PA) against the full life-time investment of Rs.12,88,575/- with an initial deduction of Rs.43,575/-. The OP insurers as well as the OP3 LIC Agent have even failed to produce the proposal wherein the complainant has been alleged to have proposed to purchase policy no. 165819119 under Jeevan Akshay Plan VI Table 189 for option F (as has been averred in the written statement). The timely delivery of the LIP (even its dispatch) has not been proved to rebut the serious allegations as made out in the complaint. The delay in dispatch of the LIC Policy by the OP1 & OP2 service providers through their OP3 Adviser and its receipt and further return by the policy-holder complainant/non-mention of Policy Plan etc on the proposal along with some other queries need to be have further clarified through acceptable evidence etc. The unexplained hurry also casts ‘exclaim’ at the issuance of the Policy on the strength of ‘one’ post-dated ‘premium’ yet to be received as maturity payment of another maturing policy. The above documentary evidence as available on the proceedings does prove a definite diverts from the prescribed LIC Policy Issue Norms & Practice. The complainant has sought through this complaint directions to the OP to change the policy into 5 year basis under LIC Pension Scheme but this relief cannot be granted to the complainant as there is no such policy of LIC under which after depositing of Rs.12,88,775/- one can get pension of Rs.12,000/- per month. The complainant has even not sought the relief of refund of amount invested with the OP. It is a settled law by now that the relief which is not sought by the complainant in his complaint cannot be granted by the court. However, we are of the considered opinion that it shall be both judicially and judiciously fair to statutorily deprecate the working of the Ropar Branch of the reputed corporate insurers on the strength of firm and sufficient evidence as has been made available on records and thus we are inclined to pronounce and affirm an adverse award on the strength of an altogether unprecedented evidence.

10.     In the light of the all above, and as has been stated by the OP we also find that there is no such policy of LIC under which after depositing of Rs. 12,88,775/- one can get pension of Rs.12,000/- per month and hence directions to change the policy of the complainant into 5 year under LIC Pension scheme for paying Rs.12,000/- per month cannot be given to the OP’s. However keeping in view of this peculiar situation we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the opposite party insurers to refund/repay back the receipted amount to the complainant if he so desires and advised (on his making written request within 30 days to the LIC) subject to any deductions as per LIC Rules besides to pay him Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the present orders.

11.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

                                                                                (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                      President.                                                                                   

ANNOUNCED:                                                   (Jagdeep Kaur)

February 23, 2017                                                      Member.

*MK*