J U D G E M E N T
Mr. Sankar Kumar Ghosh, Hon’ble President ─ This consumer complaint under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the OPs named above alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
Complainants’ case, in brief, is as follows: - That complainant executed a General Power of Attorney on 29/03/2018 in favour of his father, Shyamal Ghosh for filing this case and other works which is authenticated by Notary Public, Howrah on 09/04/2018.
That complainant stated that Mr. Partha Sarathi Roy, one of the senior and reputed agent of LICI showed the father of complainant one advertisement under Table No. 180 which was issued by Mr. Dipal Dey, Sr. Branch Manager, LICI of Howrah District Branch on 22/12/2006 and in the said advertisement it was written in bold letter that “Pay Rs.5,000/- per year for 5 yrs and take Rs.1,12,000/- on 10 yrs” that means total payment for 5 years is Rs.25,000/- only and wait up to 10 yrs for maturity return amount of Rs.1,12,000/- only and if the policy is made for further period of 10 yrs or more the maturity value will grow much more proportionately.
That after complainant also stated that if it was not written in the advertisement about return i.e. pay Rs.5,000/- per yr. for 5 (five) yrs and wait up to 10 yrs for Rs.1,12,000/- then he would not have taken the policy under table 180 although the agent had given a written promise to the effect that pay Rs.25,000/- in 5 yrs and get a return of Rs.1,12,000/- after 10 yrs. But, now the OP, i.e. LICI is not accepting the said promise.
That complainant also stated that the father of minor policy holder believes the assurance of the agent from the core of the heart and only after going through the writing in the advertisement in a very simple mind and on good faith took the policy under table 180 because the advertisement was issued by a senior Branch Manager which declared definite return and as such, father of the complainant had no reason to believe otherwise whatsoever.
That complainant further stated that LICI refused to pay according to the condition of the advertisement because LICI is unwilling to accept the condition of the advertisement and LICI explained the table 180 in different manner with a view to give less payment to the father of the complainant and the discharge voucher which has been sent to the father of the complainant by LICI is much less than the assured money and owing to that reason, the father of complainant refused to accept the payment.
That father of complainant stated that on the basis of such misleading advertisement, LICI is indulging in mis-sale of insurance policy among the public and grabbing crores of money from the public and under such circumstances father of the complainant set a letter on 18/04/2017 to the Branch Manager, LICI, Howrah District Branch, OP No. 2 for rectification of the matured amount of the said policy but no response made as yet and after one month father of complainant on 23/05/2017 made a complaint to CRM, LICI, Grievance Redressal Officer, LICI, Rallis Building, Howrah Divisional Office and even after accepting the same he did not gave any reply. Thereafter, father of complainant met twice with Mr. Siddhartha Mondal, CRM, Howrah Divisional Office for reply and ultimately he gave reply on 14/08/2017 nearly about 3 months later without mentioning the advertisement issued by Mr. Dipal Dey and ultimately avoided the matter with a vile intention to make the father of the complainant financially looser.
That after father of complainant sent a letter further on 25/09/2017 to the OP No. 4 with the request to make revaluation in terms of the said advertisement but he made no reply.
That father of complainant also stated that a copy of letter dated 23/05/2017 was also endorsed to insurance ombudsman which the received on 24/06/2017 and gave reply by a letter dated 13/06/2017 with a comment to contact Mumbai Branch Ombufdmsn Office and as per said advice father of complainant sent a letter to Mumbai Office on 14/08/2017 but they did not give any reply even after receiving the same on 04/09/2017. After that father of complainant also sent a letter to the Deputy Director, IRDA, Hyderabad on 06/09/2017 but again they did not give any reply. Next, on 25/09/2017 father of complainant applied before OP No. 4 for revaluation of the maturity value as per advertisement of OP No. 3 but he replied on 13/10/2017 without increasing the maturity value as per said advertisement of OP No. 3. Thereafter, father of complainant sent another prayer on 19/01/2018 to the Branch Manager, OP No. 2 for revaluation of the maturity value but father of complainant did not get any fruitful result.
Under such compelling circumstances and finding no other alternative way complainant filed this case before this Commission (formerly Forum) alleging severe harassment, agony and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly, complainant has prayed before this Commission (formerly Forum) directing upon OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3 to: -
- Pay a sum of Rs.2,24,000/- only for total maturity value towards mental trauma and harassment.
- Pay a sum of Rs.22,400/- only on account of interest due since 30/03/2017.
- Pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- only as compensation towards physical pain, mental trauma, and harassment.
- Pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- only as peneal for unfair trade practice.
- Pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- only as litigation cost.
- Other reliefs.
OP Nos. 1 to 4 have filed W/V jointly denying all material allegations and contented inter alia that: -
The instant case is not maintainable according to law or in fact as defined under C.P. Act and the instant case is frivolous, harassing and ill-motivated and the instant case is bad for mis-joinder of unnecessary party or against the replying OPs. OP No. 1 also denied the petition of complainant as the authority is not related in the matter of disposal/payment of policy claim of the policy in question.
OP Nos. 1 to 4 submitted that the petitioner is life assured policy of Policy No. 437681208 who was minor at the time of taking of said policy on 30/03/2007 and his father was the proposer of the said policy. OP Nos. 1 to 4 submitted that amount which has been mentioned in the petition of complaint is not correct and according to terms and conditions of the policy, fund value is to be payable i.e. Rs.71,534/- only and the father of petition willfully purchased the said policy and according to normal rules and regulations of the said policy condition, policy holder has right of cancellation of agreement within 15(fifteen) days of receiving the policy bond.
OP Nos. 1 to 4 further submitted that in the policy agreement it is clearly mentioned that benefit varies plan wise and the entire benefit is described within the policy bond and the said policy was a unit linked endowment plan, as such, benefit depends upon the Net Asset Value for the total unit held at the time of claim of policy money and such type of unit plan attracts market risk and investment risk.
Further stated by the OP Nos. 1 to 4 that according to rules discharge voucher was issued to the policy holder but the same has not yet been received by the complainant. Further, it is stated that the said policy is unit linked endowment plan which offers investment cum insurance during the term of policy. Hence, life cover is compulsory under the said plan and life cover charge will be deducted every month upon the difference between the sum assured under the plan and the fund value of the units as on date of deduction of charge, only if the basic sum assured is more than the fund value of the units on the date of deduction.
And as per contract, OP Nos. 1 to 4 stated in their W/V that the premium allocated to purchase units will be invested according to the investment pattern prescribed for different fund types i.e. (i) Bond fund, (ii) Secured Fund, (iii) Balances fund and (iv) Growth fund and policy holder will have the option to choose any one of the above 4(four) funds. The Net Asset Value(NAV) will be computed on daily basis from the date of launch of plan. And for this plan, NAV is not fixed for first one month @ Rs.10/- per unit and policy opted in his proposal paper in Growth Fund.
As such, in the instant case, the prayer of complainant is vague and OP Nos. 1 to 4 have prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the other hand, OP No. 5 filed W/V stating all material allegations and contented inter alia that: -
OP No. 5 stated that his duty to sale of LIC Policy’s as per need of policy buyers and accordingly sold Money Plus to Mr. Sourav Kanti Ghosh (life assured) for 10 years term as yearly premium of Rs.5,000/- per year which sum assured Rs.50,000/-. It is also stated by OP No. 5 that Mr. Dipal Dey, Sr. Branch Manager prescribed to sale this ULIP type policy to all agents of this branch and he had given a chart for Money Plus Policy which would be shown to my policy buyer and there mentioned maturity amount. If anybody pay Rs.5,000/- per year for five years that means Rs.25,000/- paid for five years, after 10 years maturity return will be shown as Rs.1,12,000/- as per table shown by Mr. Dipal Dey and father of policy holder deposited Rs.5,000/- for 10 years i.e. Rs.50,000/- and after maturity LIC will be released Rs.72,000/- (approx.) as maturity amount but it is not equal as per chart given by our Sr. Branch Manager, Mr. Dipal Dey, the maturity amount will be Rs.2,24,000/- only.
OP No. 5 further stated that at the time of discussion OP No. 5 put a question to Mr. Dipal Dey about the return amount i.e. total investment Rs.25,000/- in five years and return amount Rs.1,12,000/- after 10 years: Is it possible or not! And at that time he told that absolutely\ the total return will come from share market and upon such version on this point of Mr. Dipal Dey OP No. 5 tried to convince different customers for entry at ULIP policy.
That OP No. 5 moreover, stated that as per instruction of Mr. Dipal Dey regarding ULIP policy, OP No. 5 compensated many of such ULIP policy holders from his pocket because customesr demanded for return as per chart of Mr. Dipal Dey.
As such, OP No. 5 prayed for getting himself free from all liabilities in the instant case.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Whether the complainant is the consumer to the OPs or not?
- Whether this Commission (formerly Forum) has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs or there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
On close scrutiny from the materials on record, it reveals that the complainant is a consumer under Section 2(i)(d)(i)(ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986 to the OPs.
Complainant appears to be the resident of district Howrah whereas OPs are having their offices in district Howrah and Kolkata. Considering the nature of the case and prayers of the complainant it straightway gives clear signal that pecuniary value of the case is within Rs.20,00,000/- i.e. within the limit of this Commission (formerly Forum). So, this Commission (formerly Forum) has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case.
In this case main allegation of complainant is that the OP Nos. 1 to 4 have purposely repudiated the actual claim of the complainant resulting which he initiated this case.
On the other hand, OP Nos. 1 to 4 have challenged the contention/version of the complainant in toto and as per them the premium allocated to the purchased unit will be invested according to the investment pattern prescribed for different fund types. The Net Asset Value (NAV) will be computed on from the date of launch of plan and for this plan NAV is not fixed for first one month @ Rs.10/- per unit and policy opted by the complainant in his proposal paper in Growth Fund, naturally as per that method complainant is entitled to have his maturity value of his concerned insurance policy.
Be it mentioned that OP No. 5 being the agent of LIC of India and through him complainant purchased his concerned insurance policy and as per him (OP No. 5) that OP No. 3 told him that the total return will come from the share market and upon such version on that point of OP No. 3, OP No. 5 (agent) tried to convince different customers for entry at ULIP policy and OP No. 5 also alleged that he (OP No. 5) compensated of such many ULIP policy holders from his pocket because customers demanded for return as per chart of OP No. 3.
It appears from the materials on record that complainant adduced evidence by filing written examination-in-chief supported by an affidavit swearing by his father Sri Shyamal Ghosh being an attorney of complainant, highlighting his version as depicted in the petition of complaint. Complainant also filed BNA.
Complainant filed different documentary evidence including photocopy of proposal for LIC’s money plus plan and complainant to prove his case filed evidence in the form of oral and documentary evidence.
On the other hand, it reveals from the order dated 06/08/2019 of this Commission (formerly Forum) that OP No. 5 in person was present and he submitted that he would not filed any evidence. That apart said order dated 06/08/2019 also shows that other OPs were found absent on that day and on call they did not take any step nor filed any evidence and thus, this Commission (formerly Forum) closed their evidence. Be it mentioned that OPs except OP No. 5 filed BNA.
It is candidly vouched during argument Mr. Shyamal Ghosh, father of complainant duly being authorized argued that according to the terms and conditions of the said policy the complainant under table 180 simply on the basis of advertisement issued by OP No. 3 and also on the basis of written promise given by the concerned agent (OP No. 5) father of complainant was sure that after 10 years from the purchase of such policy complainant would get Rs.2,24,000/-. He also highlighted that LICI has cheated the complainant from his due money and wants to make payment of Rs.71,534/-. He also argued that LICI is a reputed organization and by circulating said advertisement LICI has deceived lakh of people, that is not desirable. He also added that complainant has suffered huge financial losses and an irreparable loss and damages may have suffered monetary loss by complainant from the negligent act caused by OP Nos. 1 & 2. He also argued that complainant is entitled to have policy matured amount of Rs.2,24,000/- and he also submitted that as per CP Act necessary and appropriate amount be awarded in favour of the complainant and pass necessary order against OP Nos. 1 to 4 for their unfair trade practice. That apart complainant is entitled to have compensation for physical pain and mental agony and also complainant is entitled to have litigation cost.
On the other hand Ld. counsel appearing for the OP Nos. 1 to 4 have vehemently opposed the argument made by Mr. Shyamal Ghosh, father of complainant and contented that according to the terms and conditions of the said policy fund value will be calculated as follows:-
No. of Unis X Net Asset Value = Fund Value + Rs.19.1124 = 71,534.38.
He also argued that at the time of maturity of the above mentioned policy the number of units held in the policy holder’s account was 3742.826.
It is pertinent to mention that OP No. 5 in his W/V alleged that as per instructions of OP No. 3 regarding ULIP policy, he (OP No. 5) has compensated many of such ULIP policy holders from his pocket because customers demanded for return as per chart of OP No. 3. It is pertinent to note that in support of such allegations OP No. 5 has not adduced any evidence in the form of oral or documentary evidence. It may be noted that mere allegation is not proof. The allegations must be proved by cogent and substantive piece of evidence. It can safely be said that by submitting his W/V in fact, OP No. 5 has struck his axe strongly hammering at the very root of the complainant’s case resulting which automatically complaint case has become feeble and weak. Even the so-called writings alleged to have given by OP No. 5 to complainant regarding assurance of alleged payment claimed by complainant has not been proved by OP No. 5 by placing any evidence. Naturally, we cannot take attach importance upon that writings of OP No. 5.
Further, it may be noted that Ld. Counsel appearing for the OPs except OP No. 5 submitted that upon policy holders surviving the date of maturity and amount equal to the fund value of the units held in the policy holders fund value is payable as maturity claim. He also argued that at the time of maturity of the above mentioned policy of complainant number of units held in the policy holder’s account was 3742.826. The Net Asset Value was Rs.19.1124. So, the maturity amount comes to Rs.71534.38.
Considering the attending facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record we are of the view that though complainant made several allegations against OP Nos. 1 to 4 but to prove the same complainant has failed completely. Rather we find logic and reasonable explanation in the argument of Ld. Counsel appearing for the OP Nos. 1 to 4.
Moreover, it will not be out of place to mention that the role of OP No. 5 as agent appears to be very curious and suspicious. Certainly his act and conduct should be very impartial, but from the W/V of OP No. 5 as well as considering the total circumstantial evidence adverse inference may be had against the act and conduct of OP No. 5 and in fact, as per our opinion because of him (OP No. 5) complainant’s case has become more confused and controversial.
In view of the above discussion we are of the view that complainant has failed to prove his case and as such the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, it is,
O R D E R E D
That the instant case being No. 143 of 2018 be and the same is dismissed against OP Nos. 1 to 5 without costs.
Let free copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
Dictated & Corrected by me
(Mr. Sankar Kumar Ghosh)
President, DCDRC, Howrah
