For Complainant         :           Sri Bishnu Prasad Patra, Advocate & associates.

For Opp. Party             :           Sri K. N. Samantaray, Advocate & associates.

1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he obtained Policy No.590723695 under SSS commenced on 28.07.1995 from the OP, the date of maturity being 28.07.2015.  It is submitted that the OP on maturity of the policy paid only Rs.30, 745/- on 02.04.2016 instead of Rs.48, 000/-.  It is submitted that the complainant from time to time approached to the OP to release the actual maturity value under the policy but the OP stated that there are 23 gap premiums under the policy for which they release short payment.  The complainant further submitted that after maturity of the policy, it covers 50% risk for further 10 years on the life of the complainant but the OP took the policy bond at the time of releasing maturity claim and did not return it to the complainant.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to release the rest of the amount of Rs.17, 200/-, to return the original policy bond and to pay Rs.1.00 lac towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The OP filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the policy taken by the complainant on his life which was matured on 28.07.2015.  It is contended that the complainant purchased the policy for a monthly premium of Rs.143/- and the maturity value of Rs.30, 745/- was paid to the complainant as there were 24 gaps in the policy.  It is contended that the complainant was asked through a letter dt.24.2.2016 to submit deduction certificate for the gaps from the DDO but the complainant did not furnish the same and submitted one letter expressing his inability to produce the deduction particulars for the gap period and requested to settle the claim after deducting the gap premiums.  Hence after deducting the gap premiums, the OP paid a sum of Rs.30, 745/- as maturity claim.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case Policy No.590723695 under SSS issued in favour of the complainant by the OP with premium of Rs.143/- pm commenced from 28.07.1995 and date of maturity being28.07.2015 are all admitted facts.  The complainant stated that the policy matured on 28.07.2015 and the OP paid the maturity value of Rs.30, 745/- on 02.04.2016 in place of Rs.48, 000/-.  The OP stated that there were 24 gaps at the time of maturity of the policy and the complainant was intimated about the fact orally and on 24.02.2016 he was intimated in writing.  The complainant was asked to submit salary deduction particulars but he expressed his inability through a letter to submit the deduction particulars and requested the OP to settle the maturity claim after deducting gap premiums.

5.                     The OP stated that the complainant has intimated them to release the maturity value minus gap premiums for which they paid Rs.30, 745/- as maturity claim.  In our view that intimation through a letter by the complainant to the OP does not mean that the rest of maturity value will be left by the complainant forever.  Collection of premium deduction particulars may take some time but it will definitely come and the OP is duty bound to release rest of the dues as per deduction particulars.  However, the complainant has come up with this case and as per direction of this Forum, the DDOs have furnished the deduction particulars and after getting the particulars, the OP has released Rs.17, 054/- in favour of the complainant on 09.11.2018.

6.                     In Salary Saving Scheme, the premiums of the policy holder is being deducted by the DDOs and they deposit the money through local treasury.  The concerned treasury sends the premiums to the LIC authorities with schedule.  If in any case, that schedules got missing, the premium amount cannot be credited to the respective policies by the LIC and will show gap premiums.  This is not the mistake of OP so to say.  Hence showing gap premium by the OP in our opinion does not amount any deficiency in service.  However, for the late payment, the complainant in this case is entitled for the interest on the maturity amount.  While assessing the late period, it is seen that the policy matured on 28.07.2015 and the OP paid Rs.30, 745/- on 02.04.2016 and Rs.17, 054/- towards rest of the maturity value was paid on 09.11.2018.  The total maturity amount paid to the complainant is Rs.47, 799/- (Rs.30, 745/- + Rs.17, 054/-).  Thus the complainant is entitled for interest on Rs.47, 799/- from the date of maturity till 02.04.2016 and on Rs.17, 054/- from 02.04.2016 to 09.11.2018.  As we do not find any deficiency in service, we are declined to grant any compensation in favour of the complainant except a sum of Rs.1000/- towards cost of this litigation.  The OP is to return the LIC bond to the complainant since the policy matured in full.

7.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP is directed to pay only interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.47, 799/- from 28.07.2015 to 02.04.2016 and interest on Rs.17, 054/- from 02.04.2016 to 09.11.2018 along with Rs.1000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.  The OP is further directed to return the policy bond in original to the complainant for his future use.  The above directions are to be complied within 30 days from the date of communication of the order.

(to dict.)