Sahil Mahajan, complainant has filed the present complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Life Insurance Corporation of India, seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to make the payment of amount of Rs.1,50,000/-  along with interest for which complainant is legally entitled and the opposite parties may be burdened with a cost of Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.20,000/- for mental harassment and torture in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased Policy No.102426610 under Bank Insurance channel through opposite party no.2 on 13.02.2018 by paying Rs.1,50,000/- to the opposite party no.1 through bank. It is further alleged that the terms of the said insurance policy was not explained in detail by the Branch Manager of LIC. He was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of insurance policy and he immediately made request for closing the policy and the same was closed on 06.03.2018 by the opposite party no.1. It is further alleged that he immediately applied for refund of the premium amount paid by him to the opposite party no.1 but inspite of repeated requests OP.NO.1 failed to refund the same. Hence, complainant suffered physical, mental harassment and financial loss which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Thus, there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party no.1 who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply. Issuance of the policy no.102426610 with commencement date 13.02.2018 is admitted. It is asserted that premium amount of Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith benefit payable for the specific period amounting of Rs.1,50,684/- was refunded through NEFT dated 20.12.2018 and the amount credited in his account number 2079018582 being maintained in Central Bank if India Office Awankha, Dinanagar. Nothing more is payable under the policy in question. On merits, all other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs. 

4.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party no.2 who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complainant purchased alleged policy through opposite party no.2 by paying amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the opposite party no.1 and it is denied for want of knowledge that whether terms and conditions of insurance policy were explained to complainant by Manager of OP.NO.1 or not. It is further denied for want of knowledge that whether complainant was satisfied with terms of insurance policy or not. It is further admitted that bank officials also requested OP.NO.1 for processing the case of complainant but it is clarified here that case of refund of money of complainant was to be processed by OP.NO.1. It is further pleaded that neither complainant has suffered physical, mental harassment due to any act of OP.NO.2 and there is no deficiency in service on part of OP.NO.2. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

5.       Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant (Ex.C-1) alongwith other documents (Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-12).

6.       Ld. counsel for the opposite party no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Mohinderpal Kalotra (Administrator Officer, LIC), (Ex.OPW-1/A) alongwith other document (Ex.OP-1).

7.       Ld. counsel for the opposite party no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Chandergupt Meena (Branch Manager, Central Bank of India), (Ex.OP-2/1) alongwith other documents (Ex.OP-2/2 to Ex.OP-2/6).

8.       Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

9.       Written arguments on behalf of OP.NO. 1 and 2 filed and we have heard the counsels for the parties in detail and gone through the record.

10.     Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had purchased policy of insurance on 13.02.2018 by making payment of Rs.l,50,000/- to opposite party No.1 through Bank. Since the terms and conditions were not explained to the complainant as such complainant had immediately requested for closing the policy and the same was closed on 06.03.2018 by opposite party No.1 but till the filing of the complaint had not refunded the amount.

11.     On the other hand Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 has argued that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith benefit payable for specific period amounting to Rs.1,50,684/- was refunded to the complainant through NEFT on 20.12.20218 through his account and as such there is no deficiency in service and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

12.     Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.2 has also argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank and complaint is not maintainable.

13.     We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record. Admittedly complainant had purchased policy of insurance from opposite party No.1 by making payment of Rs.1,50,000/- through opposite party No.2 Bank. It is further admitted fact that the complainant had got the said policy closed on 06.03.2018. It is further admitted fact that the opposite party No.1 refunded the amount of Rs.1,50,684/- to the complainant on 20.12.20218 vide receipt Ex.OP-1. This Commission is of the view that although amount had been refunded to the complainant but the same was refunded after a considerable delay without any reasonable explanation. As such present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.1 is directed to pay interest @ 9% on the amount of Rs.1,50,684/- w.e.f. 06.03.2018 to 20.12.2018. The opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay damages of Rs.3,000/- on account of mental tension, harassment and cost of litigation to the complainant. Entire exercise will be completed within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

14.      The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

15.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record room. 

                                (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                        President 

Announced:                                          (B.S.Matharu)

July 21, 2023                                                Member

*YP*