Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/157/2022

VIR BHAN SINGLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

PANKAJ MAINI ADV.

21 Mar 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[ADDITIONAL BENCH]

============

Appeal No	:	A/157/2022
Date  of  Institution	:	05/10/2022
Date   of   Decision	:	21/03/2023

 

 

 

 

 

Vir Bhan Singla son of Sh. Sadhu Ram, Resident of H.No.HIG-656, Sector 16, Panchkula.

…. Appellant

 

V E R S U S

 

[1]    The Life Insurance Corporation of India, through its Manager (CRM) L.I.C., Divisional Office, Jeewan Parkash Building, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

 

[2]    The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Jeewan Parkash Building, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

 

…… Respondents

 

BEFORE:   MRS. PADMA PANDEY       PRESIDING MEMBER

          PREETINDER SINGH        MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Pankaj Maini, Advocate for the Appellant.
		Sh. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for the Respondents.

 

PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

 

This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.10.2022, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it dismissed the Consumer Complaint bearing no. CC/953/2019, in the following terms:-

“8.  In view of the aforesaid discussion and the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. Accordingly, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.”

 

2.      Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was the case of the Appellant/ Complainant that he purchased a policy from the Respondents/OPs on 08.01.2001 which was an Endowment Assurance Policy without interest. As per the Appellant/ Complainant, the Respondents/OPs had wrongly mentioned that at the date of maturity, if the death of the complainant did not occur, then sum assured only was payable. As per the schedule issued by the Respondents/OPs to the Appellant/complainant, the date of issue of the policy was 15.01.2001 and date of maturity was January 2018 and the rate of interest to be carried on the policy was @9.5%. It was alleged that the Respondents/OPs paid only the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant in his account without paying any interest or bonus to him. Accordingly, the complainant got served a legal notice upon the Respondents/OPs by clarifying that he had paid premium of 17 annual installments of Rs.5,422/-, whereas, at the time of the issuance of the Policy he was informed that he would get Rs.2,50,000/- at the time of maturity. As per Appellant/complainant, he was entitled for sum assured + bonus in addition to that final additional bonus if premium paid was for 15 years or more. As per the terms and conditions of the Respondents/OPs, the Appellant/complainant was entitled for bonus @ 48/- per thousand rupees per annum and final additional bonus @ Rs.500/- per thousand rupees. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

3.      The Respondents/OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their reply pleading that at the time of taking the policy, the Appellant/ Complainant was very much aware about the nature of the Policy i.e., “Endowment Assurance Policy without profits and bonus” and it was specifically written on the first page of Policy Bond “Endowment Assurance Policy without profits and accident benefit, death before date of maturity-sum assured only & surviving on the date of maturity-sum assured only.”. On these ground, the consumer complaint was sought to be contested.

 

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission dismissed the consumer Complaint of the Appellant/ Complainant as noticed in the opening para of this order.     

 

5.      Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant.

 

6.      We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection, along with the written arguments advanced on behalf of the parties.

 

7.      The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

8.      After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

9.      Record transpires, on the policy in question, it was very clearly mentioned “Endowment Assurance Policy without profits and accident benefit, death before date of maturity-sum assured only & surviving on the date of maturity-sum assured only”. There is no dispute about the fact that the Complainant survived date of maturity. Since the complainant has survived date of maturity, then as per policy, only sum assured was payable and which had rightly been paid by the Respondents/OPs to the Appellant/complainant.

 

10.      Needless to mention here, when the Appellant/ complainant has taken the policy without any benefits, to our mind, he is not entitled to get the benefits. Moreover, the Appellant/ Complainant could not pin out any condition on the policy document to show that the policy was with profit rider or that he would get any bonus or interest on the sum assured. In this backdrop, the Ld. Lower Commission while rejecting the claim of the Complainant has rightly held that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

11.     It is a cardinal principle of law that terms of the policy shall govern the contract between the parties, they have to abide by the definition given therein and all those expressions appearing in the policy should be interpreted with reference to the terms of policy and not with reference to the definition given in other laws. It is a matter of contract and in terms of the contract the relation of the parties shall abide and it is presumed that when the parties have entered into a contract of insurance with their eyes wide open, they cannot rely on definition given in other enactment. The Ld. Lower Commission has thus rightly relied upon the “United Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal”, AIR 2004 SC 4974, Hon'ble Supreme Court.  No case is therefore made for any interference in the findings recorded ibid by the Ld. Lower Commission. 

 

12.      No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the Parties.

 

13.      It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. Lower Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made. It also does not appear to be an order passed without taking into account the available evidence.

 

14.      In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. Lower Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed and the order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.

 

15.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

16.      The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

21^st Mar.,2023                                 

Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”