1. Sulakhan Singh, Complainant (now deceased) (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against the L.I.C. of India, (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2.Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he had obtained Policy of insurance bearing No. 470384885 on dated 28-06-1998 with normally premium of Rs.446/- and the date of maturity of his policy was due on dated 28-06-2018 with sum assured of Rs.25,000/- from OP.No.2 through OP.No.3. He is regularly paid his each premium through OP.NO.3 on its due date up to its last date of premium i.e. dated 28-03-2018. It is alleged that insurance policy has taken by the complainant from the respondents, not far any benefit but only for indemnify the loss of life of complainant to his nominees, if any miss happening occurred with the policy holder i.e. complainant or otherwise the complainant was entitled to receive the maturity amount along with interest. It is further alleged that after the maturity of his policy the complaint approached to the respondent No. 2 through respondent No. 3 and informed to them the original policy bond of his policy has been lost somewhere from him during white wash of his house and requested to them to release the maturity amount of his policy in question. The respondents advised the complainant to furnish the bonds regarding the loss of his original policy and accordingly the complainant has completed all the formalities and submitted and handed over the complete file in the office of the respondent No. 2 through respondent No. 3. The complainant submitted the documents along-with application file which includes copy of policy of insurance bearing No. 470384885, Form No. 3825 (Revised), Form No. 3510, Form No. 3807, policy premium receipt, copy of bank passbook, Form No. 3815 i.e. bonds on stamp papers of report of policy No. 470384885, copy of Adhaar Card, copy of Pan Card on the asking of the respondent No. 2. The entire documents were provided to the respondents in time on their demand. It is further alleged that thereafter the complainant approached so many time to the office of respondent No. 2 and also requested to the respondent No. 3 to release the maturity value of insurance policy in his favor, but instead of hearing the complainant patiently the employees of respondent No. 2 misbehaved with the complainant and firstly they put the matter with one pretext or the other and yesterday they flatly refused to release the maturity value of insurance policy on the pretext that the date of birth mentioned on the Adhaar Card and on Pan Card are not are not matching with the record of the respondents, so they cannot sanction and release the maturity value of insurance policy in question to the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that if the respondents were continuously accepting premium from the complainant and the entire installments of premium from the complainant and the entire installments of premium amount have been paid by the complainant to the respondents without any default. It is further alleged that it is pertinent to mention here that the respondent No. 3 was duly informed about the date of birth of the complainant at the time of obtaining the policy, but he did advice to complainant to not to take insurance policy in question as the respondent No. 1 and 2 will not release the maturity value of insurance policy to the complainant and will refuse by raising frivolous objection after its maturity. Due to this illegal act and conduct of the respondents the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental harassment and inconvenience. So, there is a clear cut deficiency on the part of the respondents.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be accepted with costs and necessary direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to release the maturity value of policy of insurance bearing No. 470384885 of amounting to Rs.25000/ along-with interest @ 18 % from the date of its maturity i.e. dated 28.06.2018 till its actual realization and also direction may kindly be issued to pay the compensation of amounting to Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment, agony, inconvenience, insult and also to pay Rs.20,000/- for litigation expenses which the complainant has incurred.
3. Upon notice, opposite parties no. 1 and 2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In their joint written reply, the opposite parties raised legal objections that the complainant life assured approached the respondent No. 2 for maturity claim of policy No. 470384885 issued in his name, but as alleged, he was not in possession of original policy bond issued to him at the time of issue of policy to pay maturity claim under policy in question. The complainant was advised to complete the required papers, surety bond, indemnity bond form No. 3825 and form No. 3510 and form No. 3807 etc., accordingly and submit the same with respondent No. 2 to proceed with the payment of maturity claim under the policy in his name. It is denied that after completing the above said papers, he handed over the same to defendant No. 2 through respondent No. 3. In fact, none of the document to proceed with the payment without policy bond has been received by the respondent No. 2. It is further pleaded that it is not known whether the complainant requested the respondent No. 3 or not and that too for what purpose the reason is best known to him. No such misbehavior was done with the complainant. There is no deficiency in service but difference of age of 11 year has to be clarified before setting the maturity claim. Date of birth of the life assured was recorded as 01.01.1961 at the time of accepting proposal, whereas date of birth as per Pan Card is 01.01.1950, there is difference of age of complainant is 11 years which cannot be ignored, while calculating the revised premium.
On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sulakhan Singh (Complainant) Ex.CW-1 along-with other documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Mohinder Pal Kalotra, Administrative Officer, LIC, Branch Office, Gurdaspur as Ex.OP-1,2/1 along-with other documents Ex.OP-1,2/2 to Ex.OP-1,2/5.
6. Rejoinder filed by the complainant.
7. During the pendency of present complaint, the original complainant Sulakhan Singh expired on 15.02.2022 and an application was moved through legal heirs of the complainant for bringing on record legal heirs of Sulakhan Singh, which was allowed vide order dated 24.07.2023.
8. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsels for the parties; oral arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.
9. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has purchased policy of insurance from the opposite parties and date of maturity of the policy was due on 28.06.2018 with sum assured of Rs.25000/-. It is further argued that complainant had lost the original policy documents and as such on being instructed by the opposite parties, complainant submitted Form No. 2825, Form No. 3510, Form No. 3807, Form No. 3815, copy of passbook and bonds on stamp papers of Rs.350/- but inspite of completion of all the formalities, the opposite party has failed to release the maturity value of Rs.25000/- to the complainant.
10.On the other hand counsel for the opposite party has argued that complainant was not in possession of original policy bond issued to him and was advised to complete required papers, surety bond, form No. 3825, 3510, 3807 and submit the same with opposite party No. 2. However, the complainant failed to submit the said documents. It is further argued that at the time of accepting proposal the complainant got his date of birth mentioned as 01.01.1961. However in Pan Card date of birth is mentioned as 01.01.1950 and as such while calculating the revised premium the difference of age of 11 years cannot be ignored. Since, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party; as such complainant is liable to be dismissed.
11. We have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
12. To prove his case, complainant has placed on record affidavit of Sulakhan Singh, Adhaar Card of Sulakhan Singh as Ex.C1 wherein the date of birth of Sulakhan Singh is mentioned as 01.01.1950, copy of policy of insurance is Ex.C2 where the date of birth of the insured is mentioned as 01.01.1961. Complainant has also placed on record form No. 3825 Ex.C4, form No. 3807, Ex.C5, Form No. 3510 Ex.C6, copy of passbook Ex.C7, copy of Form No. 3815 on stamp papers of Rs.350/-, copy of Adhaar Card Ex.C10. On the other hand, counsel for the opposite parties have placed on record affidavit of MohinderpalKalotra Ex.OP1,2/1, copy of policy document, proposal form and Adhaar card. The opposite parties have denied the claim that is maturity value payable under the policy only on the basis of difference of age of 11 years, as on the Adhaar Card, Pan Card date of birth of the insured is mentioned as 01.01.1950 whereas in the proposal form and police of insurance, date of birth of the insured is mentioned as 01.01.1961.
13. However, this commission is of the view that the opposite party cannot deny settlement of claim by taking excuse regarding difference of 11 years in the date of birth, as it was the duty of the agent/ concerned officer of the opposite parties to confirm the date of birth of the insured while accepting the proposal and getting the same signed and accepting the premium and since the opposite parties accepted the premium at the time of signing of proposal form Ex.OP1,2/3 and admitted the date of birth of the insured as 01.01.1961 as correct. As such opposite parties have no right to dispute the date of birth of the insured at the time of payment of maturity value payable under the policy. The second plea of the opposite parties regarding non submission of surety bonds, indemnity bonds, form No. 2825, 3510, 3107 is concerned. The complainant has placed on record all the said forms as Ex.C4 to Ex.C6 and Ex.C8. As such the said plea of the opposite party is also falsified. The complainant has fully proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 for having withheld the maturity value of Rs.25000/-. Accordingly the present complaint is partly allowed with the following directions:-
- Legal heirs of the complainant are directed to submit fresh bonds, indemnity bonds form No. 3825, 3510, 3807 and their account numbers.
- Opposite parties no.1 and 2 are directed to release the maturity value of the policy of insurance bearing No. 470384885 amounting Rs.25000/- along-with interest at the rate of 9 % with effect from 28.06.2018 till realization of the amount in favor of legal heirs of complainant in equal share.
- Since the complainant suffered mental harassment, tension and inconvenience and had to approach this commission for getting the maturity value released as such opposite parties no.1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant.
14. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
15.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.
16. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Aug 02, 2023 Member
*YP*
