Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/83/2016

Rabindra Nath Debata - Complainant(s)

Versus

Life Insurance Corporation Of India ( Chairman-cum-Managing Director) - Opp.Party(s)

Sri P. Panigrahi

12 Sep 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Case No- 83/2016

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

 

Rabindra Nath Debata,

S/O-Late Jagdish Debata

R/O-PanchGachhia, Po-Bareipali,

Dist-Sambalpur-768006.                                               ...………..Complainant

                                                Versus

Life Insurance Corporation of India

Represented through its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director,

Yogakesama, Jivan Bima Marg,

Post Bos No. 19953, Mumbai-400021                          …………...Opp.Parties

 

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant                   :-         Sri. P.Panigrahi & Associates.
2. For the O.P.1 & 2                         :-         Sri. A.K.Nayak.

 

Date of filing:03.10.2016 Date of Hearing :10.08.2022, Date of Judgement : 12.09.2022

           Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT,

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is a policy holder of the O.P. having Policy No. 591156340 and paid the First Premium of Rs. 7,951/- pension plan Jeevan Suraksha. The term of policy is for 15 years and completed the term payment on 28.03.2015. After receipt of premium on 28.03.2015, the O.P. failed to provide pension to the Complainant from 28.04.2016 till date of filing of the complaint without any good and sufficient cause.

On 10.07.2016 the complainant informed the O.P. about non payment but no any action was taken. On 30.08.2016 through registered notice requested to refund Rs. 1,19,265 the paid premium. On 28.09.2019 the through Manager (CRM), LIC, Sambalpur transmitted some forms for resubmission to avail the annuity without whispering about refund and damages claimed earlier. On 27.09.2016 the Complainant received a message from O.P. falsely conveying that the complaint No. 1617021030 has been resolved.

Being agrived this complaint has been filed.

2. The O.P. after appearance submitted its version and challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum/Commission. The O.P. admitted the fact of Jeevan Suraksha Policy No. 591156340, payment of 1^st premium Rs. 7951/- and payment till last premium dated 28.03.2015. The Commencement date of pension was 28.04.2016. As per Jeevan Suraksha Policy(T-122) before due date of annuity payment annuity master has to be extracted by Sambalpur Branch-Office-I of LIC on 01.02.2016 and option letter generated through such extraction to be dispatched to the policy holder with a request to submit the option letter after duly filled along with bank details. The Sambalpur Branch on 08.02.2016 by ordinary post but as the Complainant did not return the option letter along with Bank details, the branch office unable to ratify the master and send the same to Zonal office at Patna to release the annuity after receiving the ratified master from the branch.

After receiving complaint letter dated 30.08.2016 the C.R.M. Deptt. of Divisional office, Sambalpur has sent their reply along with option form, N.E.F.T. mandate form and a copy of the discharge voucher and requested the Complainant to furnish the document duly filled so that annuity under the policy can be released. Without complying the procedural aspect the Complainant filed the case on false and frivolous grounds.

The case suffers from mis-joinder and non-joinder of prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. After going through the complaint, version of the O.P. and documents filed by the partied the following issues are framed:-
103606587.  

1. Whether this Forum/Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
2. Is there any deficiency in service of the O.P. by not providing annuity of the policy to the complainant in time?
3. Is the complaint suffers from mis-joinder or non-joinder of necessary parties?
4. What relief the Complainant is entitled to receive?

Issue No.1 Whether this Forum/Commission has  no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

                                                AND

Issue No.3 Is the complaint suffers from mis-joinder or non-joinder of necessary parties?

          Policy No. 591156340 dated 28.03.2001 was initiated by the O.P. under P & GS Unit Sambalpur on the introduction of Agent Sri. L.D.Mahanta, Agent code 3916-587 and DO Code-301059. The Complaint is resident of Panchgacchia PO-Baripali under Sambalpur district and the policy issuing Branch is also Sambalpur. As the Branch office of the O.P. is situated in Sambalpur so this Forum/Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

          The allegation of the O.P. is that the complaint suffers from mis-joinder of necessary party and non-joinder of necessary parties. In the complaint the only opposite party is LIC of India through its chairman cum M.D., Mumbai which is the head of the corporate office. The O.P. runs its business throughout India in the name of LIC of India and in the present case power has been delegated to the constituted attorney, Divisional office, Sambalpur Administrative officer, the Zonal Manager. East central Zone, Patna. The Branch Manager, LIC of India. Sambalpur-1 issued the policy, the Zonal Manager, Patna delegated the power to Administrative officer, Sambalpur Division. In the policy bond the O.P. has not mentioned specifically before whom any complaint is to be made. No doubt it is pleaded by the O.P. that the Complainant is an advocate but here question arises how an advocate will know to whom any complaint is to be lodged. As a juristic person the corporate office Mumbai was made a party from whom the power is delegated. The O.P. being a reputed corporate body in its policy specially as not mentioned the dispute clause, rightly the Mumbai office has been made a party. Further the O.P. failed to establish who are necessary parties in the complaint and how the O.P. is a mis-joinder party.

          The issue No. 1 and 3 are answered in favour o f the Complainant.

Issue No. 2 Is there any deficiency in service of the O.P. by not providing annuity of the policy to the complainant in time?

1. It is the admitted case of both the parties that on 28.04.216 the annuity/pension was fallen due against the O.P. learned advocate for O.P. Sri. Nayak submitted that in clause 12 of the policy exercising options by the annuitant before the date of vesting is required and it is within the knowledge of the Complainant. It was the duty of the Complainant to contact the branch office at least 6 months before the vesting date but he took no initiative exercising the annuity option and unnecessary wasted his time by communicating with Mumbai office. In a Jeevan Suraksha plan, on survival of the annuitant (life assured) he will be entitled to receive a pension based on notional cash under funding approach 1,2 & 3. Under approach 4, pension will be based on maturity claim. If annuitant exercise the option to receive the 25% of the N.C.O. in lump sum, then pension will be paid one month after the policy anniversary following the attainment of vesting age. Sri. Nayak further submitted that the Complainant exercised option F (Pension for life with return of purchase price on death of the pensioner) and receive 25% of the NCO (commuted amount) in lump sum, then quarterly pension on balance NCO on 03.11.2017. After receiving the option the O.P. has settled the 25% commutation lump sum amount of Rs. 58,437/- on 04.11.2017 vide Trans No. 18895 through S.B.I. Bareipali DSC-SBIN-0009031 A/C No. 10535496890 and broken period pension for 03/2016 of Rs. 172/- and quarterly pension of Rs. 3997/- each (04/2016, 07/2016, 10/2016, 01/2016, 04/2017 and 07/2017) paid on 13.11.2017. Now annuitant is receiving the pension regularly in due date.

The O.Pshas followed the mandate of the complainant strictly basing on the insurance proposal. There is no deficiency in service of the O.P. and prayed for dismissal of the complainant.

2. The Complainant submitted that as alleged by the O.P. letter dated 08.02.2016 has not been received by him, nor the dispatch register copy filed by the O.P. is an authentic one. Only to avoid the liability the O.P. has not filed the version in the form of affidavit nor examined the despatchers. Further the O.P. generally issues letters through regd. Post but in the instant case ordinary post letter has been issued and the record (dispatch register) has been manipulated. The Complainant filed maturity benefit letter issued by Bargarh Branch in respect of his another policy No. 590212406 dated 20.04.2016

As per the policy bond responsibility is casted upon both the parties to take step at least before six months of vesting date. The date of vesting in the present policy was 28.03.2016.

As per version of the O.P. on 08.02.2016 letter was issued by the O.P. and option letter was extracted by Sambalpur-1 office on 01.02.2016 through ordinary post dispatched to the Complainant. This statement of the O.P is not acceptable as no rebuttal evidence has been filed by the O.P. The Complainant sent mail on 10.07.2016 registered notice dated 30.08.2016 and only thereafter letter dated 26.09.2016 was issued by the O.P. through regd. Post. The Complainant on 01.11.2017 submitted the original policy, prescribed forms and one cancelled cheque before B.M., Sambalpur Branch. The claim of the complainant was settled and as per his option now getting the benefits.

3. In the aforesaid back ground it is clear that the O.P. in order to patch up their lacuna has taken the plea of sending letter through ordinary post submitted page No. 96 of the dispatch register, not examined the dispatcher, nor filed any affidavit in this regard. The delay in providing service by the O.P. is proved against the O.P. Due to non providing the option intimation, the complainant submitted his option only on 01.11.2017. So the delay is about eight months. The O.P. is deficient in its service for which the Complainant could not get his benefit in time. The issue is answered against the O.P.

Issue No.4What relief the Complainant is entitled to receive?

The O.P. has complied the option of the Complainant which is admitted by the Complainant and now getting the pensionary benefit regularly. As the O.P. is deficient in its service, he is entitled for part relief as claimed for and accordingly it is ordered:

                                                                          ORDER

The complaint is partly allowed on contest against the O.P. The O.P. is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to-wards deficiency in service and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- within one month of this order failing which the entire amount will carry 7% P.A. from the date of order till realisation.

Order pronounced in open court in this 12^th September 2022.

Supply free copies to the parties.