OFFICE  OF  THE  DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI

C.C.17/2010

Present:-

                             1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S.  -   President

                             2)Sri U.N.Deka                        -   Member

         Sri Mahendra Singh Dhundhla                              -Complainant

         S/O Late Dupchand Dhundhla                                      

        Rly.Qtr. 17 B,Nambari,Maligaon

        Guwahati-11,Dist.Kamrup,Assam.

                           -vs-

1)      Life Insurance Corporation of India            -    Opp.parties

          Guwahati Division , “ Jeevan Prakash”

          S.S.Road,Fancy Bazar,Guwahati                         

2)      The Branch Manager,

          Guwahati Division Branch,

          48C, Jeevan Prakash,

          S.S.Road,Fancy Bazar,Guwahati

          Kamrup,Assam.

3)      Sri Dulal Ch.Dey,

          Agent LICI, Maligaon,Guwahati.

          Agency Code : 100090570

          Div.Off.1064508, Resident of Maligaon.

Appearance-                                     

                    Learned advocate        Ms.Kalpana Yadav for the complainant

                    Learned advocate          Mr.K.K.Nandi for the Opp.Party No.1.

                    Learned advocate Ms.Pallabi Buragohain for the Opp.Party No.2.

Date of argument-          29.3.16        

Date of judgment-          27.4.16    

This is a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

1.     This is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint filed by Sri Mahendra Singh Dhundhla was admitted on 20.2.2010 and notices were served on all opp.parties, and Opp.Party No. 1 & 2 filed written statement and contested the case, but the case is proceeding on exparte against Opp.Party No.3 vide order dtd. 30.7.2010 as Opp.Party No.3 was absent on that day after receiving notice. The complainant filed his affidavit on 14.9.2010 and he was cross examined by the Opp.Party No.1 & 2 side. Thereafter, the Opp.Party NO.1 & 2 side filed the affidavit of one Sri Krishna Kakati and Smti Manna Bhattacharjee and both of them were also cross examined by the Ld counsel of the complainant . Finally both sides’ Ld counsels filed their written argument,  and thereafter, on 29.3.16, we have heard oral argument of Ld advocate Ms. Kalpana Yadav for the complainant and of Ld advocate Mr.K.K.Nandy for Opp.Party No.1 & 2, and today we delivered the judgment which is as below-

2.      The complainant’s case is that the complainant purchased one Money Back Policy vide policy No. 483248692 dtd. 10.6.2004 for a sum assured of Rs.2,70,000/- from LICI, Guwahati division through agent Sri Dulal Ch.Dey   having Agency Code No.100090570, Development Officer No.1064508 and the opp.party registered the policy vide policy No. 483248692 dtd. 10.6.2004 in the name of the complainant for a period of 20 years with monthly premium of Rs.1,864/- which will be matured in the month of June/2024 and after every five years one benefit is to be given and accordingly first benefit had been due on 10.6.09. The complainant have been paying monthly premium in regular manner, but the opp.party had not delivered the policyto him and he reminded Opp.Party NO.3 (agent) about the matter and Opp.Party No.3 assured him that Opp.Party No.1 & 2 would send the policy by post to him, but it was not sent to him and then he visited office of the Opp.Party No.1 & 2 several times and enquired about the policy and in spite of his enquiry, they failed to send the original policy to him even elapse of five years from the date of policy. Being compelled, on 27.5.2009 he lodged complaint with Opp.Party No.1 & 2 and also visited their office on 22.5.2009, 19.6.2009 and 15.10.09, but all the time they handed over him sheets of paper showing the status of the policy assuring him that policy would be sent to him. Secondly, although the first benefit (Money Back) was due on 10.6.2009, but no payment of first benefit was made to him, and he then visited the office of the opp.parties on several occasions to enquire the matter, but he was asked to meet the Dealing Asstt. and in spite of his visit and request, the first benefit was not given to him. He, being the employee of the N.F.Railway, Maligaon ,Guwahati was compelled to visit the office of the opp.parties on several occasions to enquire the matter. The premiums are being paid by the complainant through his salary. Due to failure of the opp.parties in payingthe first benefit to him after expiry of five years he had to take a loan with interest @ 24% per month. All these activities of the opp.parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence they are liable to pay due compensation to him under the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The cause of action arose on 10.6.2004, 10.6.2009, 22.5.2009, 27.5.2009, 19.6.2009 and 15.10.2009. The complainant prays for directing the opp.parties to issue original /duplicate certificate of the said policy to him and to pay him first  benefit with interest @ 24% per monthand also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3,85,000/- for causing harassment to him and for putting him in mental agony and loss of prestige as well as Rs.15,000/- as cost of the proceeding.
3.             The gist of the pleading of the Opp.Parties No. 1 & 2  is that there is no deficiency or negligence on their part. The complaint is barred by limitation. The original policy document was sent to the complainant through the concerned agent as per practice and procedure of Life Insurance Corporation of India. The complainant has also received it. The fact of non-receipt of the original policy was never intimated to them prior to 27.5.2009, although it was the duty of him to inform them about non-receipt of the insurance policy. The complainant never visited office of the opp.parties on 22.5.2009, 19.6.2009 and 15.10.2009 . When they were informed by the complainant on 27.5.2009 about non-receipt of original policy, he was asked to comply with the requirement for issue of duplicate policy, and after compliance of the requirements by the complainant, the duplicate policy was issued to him on 3.3.2010. The first survival benefit in respect of the said policy being Rs.54,000/- was paid to the complainant by an account pay cheque being cheque No. 140147 dtd. 23.1.2010 which was encashed by the complainant on 6.2.2010. As the complainant had not submitted the original policy document to them and the duplicate policy issued on compliance on requirement by him, the payment of first installment of the survival benefit was paid on issue of duplicate policy as for release of first survival benefit policy document is a must . The complainant never informed them about non-receipt of the original policy documents either before elapse of five years or after elapse of five years and thereby he has been sleeping over his right, which cannot make them liable for his own act of latches  and negligence. They have acted promptly on receipt of the information that the complainant have not received the original policy document. The complainant had taken time to comply with the necessary requirement for issue of a duplicate policy and after compliance of such requirement by him, the duplicate policy was issued to  him promptly, and the first survival benefit was paid immediately, and therefore, they are not guilty of deficiency of service towards the complainant. No cause of action for the complainant arose on the dates mentioned by him in para 14 of his complaint and even if it is assumed that cause of arose on the datesmentioned by him in para 14 of his complaint , yet the complaint is barred by limitation under the provision of section 24 (A) of Consumer Protection Act,1986, the complaint is laible to be dismissed.
4. We have perused the pleading of the parties as well as the evidence adduced by them. After perusal of the submission of both sides Ld counsel it transpires to us that it is both sides’ admitted fact that the complainant Sri Mahendra Singh Dhundla had purchased one money-back policy vide No. 483248692 dtd. 10.6.2004 from Guwahati Division of Life Insurance Corporation Ltd. (Opp.Party No.1) for a assured sum of Rs.2,70,000/- of which, 1^st benefit of money back was due after five years i.e. on 10.6.09 which was 20% of the sum assured. It is also both sides’ admitted fact that the policy was done through Opp.Party No.3 (Sri Dulal Ch.Dey)and the premium is monthly at the rate of Rs.1865/- p.m. which have been being paid from the salary of the complainant till date without default,and the maturity date of the policy is 10.6.2024. It is also both sides admitted fact that the opp.party side issued a duplicate policy to the complainant on 3.3.2010 i.e. after filing of this complaint and also paid the first money-back benefit amounting to Rs. 54,000/- on 23.1.2010 after 7 months 13 days of its due and that too after one day of filing this complaint.
5.  Now, the moot question is whether the opp.party No.1 & 2 side are responsible to hand-over the original policy to the complainant. It is the law of insurance that when the proposal of the insurance is accepted by the insured and the first premium is paid, it is the bounden duty of the insurance company to hand over the original policy to the insured immediately after the acceptance and registration of the policy. In the case in hand, the complainant sides’ first allegation that the original policy was not at all delivered to him and the duplicate policy was issued to him  on  3.3.2010 after long persuation. In this respect, the plea of Opp.party No.1 & 2 side is that they had sent the policy to complainant through their agent Sri Dulal Ch.Dey (Opp.Party No.3) as per their practice and procedure. Opp.P.W.1 and Opp.P.W.2 in their cross examination admit that there is no acknowledgment of receipt of their original policy by the complainant and they are also not producing the register of issuing the policy either to the agent (Opp.Party NO.2) or to the complainant . The Opp.Party No. 1 & 2 side has not adduced other evidence to prove their plea, nor filed the affidavit of Opp.Party No.3 (the agent). Thus, it is crystal clear that Opp.Party No.1 & 2 side has failed to prove their plea that the original policy was handed over to the complainant. Thus, we must hold that the Opp.Party No.1 & 2 side had never handed over the original policy to the complainant.

                     Opp.Party No.1 & 2 sides’ second plea is that the complainant has not bought to their notice prior to 27.5.09 that the original policy was not handed over to him, nor he visited his office on 22.5.09, 19.6.2009 and 15.10.2009  and they issued the duplicate policy to him on 3.3.2010 after compliance of issuing duplicate policy by him. The complainant in pleading and evidence states that he visited the office of Opp.Party No.1 & 2 on several occasions and filed written complaint on 27.5.09 and also visited the office of Opp.Party No.1 & 2  on 15.10.09,19.6.09 and 22.5.09 but they in all the occasions handed over him the status sheets of his policy with assurance that the original policy would be sent to him. From Ex.3 (A) and 3 (C), it is seen that the complainant visited the office of the opp.parties on the quoted dates and in all the occasions he was handed over only the status reports of his policy. All these documents also prove that the complainant in all these days requested the opp.parties to issue the original policy to him, but they handed over the status reports on every occasions giving assurance that the original policy would be issued . Thus, it is crystal clear that the Opp.Party No.1 & 2 side had issued the original policy to the complainant knowing  well that it was not issued and delivered to him. This    act of non-delivery of the original policy to the complainant amounts to deficiency of service to the complainant. It is also found that the complainant had been in mental agony for non-receipt of the original policy from 10.6.2004 to 3.3.2010 and he anyhow has become free from that mental agony after receiving the duplicate policy on 3.3.2010. It is also found that the opp.party side harassed him by compelling him to visit their office to make quary about the original policy. Therefore, we hold that the Opp.Party No.1 & 2 are liable to pay atleast Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing harassment to him and putting him in mental agony.

6.        It is already found that the opp.party side paid first money- back benefit after seven months thirteen days of its due. It is the insurance rule that when a money-back becomes due it must be paid within a reasonable period, and for releasing the said benefit the approach of the insured is not necessary. We are of opinion that 15 day is the reasonable period for completing the process of releasing the money-back benefit and beyond that they could not get time. Thus, it becomes clear that the Opp.Party NO.1 & 2 wilfully has not paid the first benefit of money-back to the complainant within in due time and delayed seven months in releasing it. It is found that if the complainant could had received the said benefit in due time, he could have utilized it in his development work. So, we are of opinion that the opp.party No.1 & 2 side are liable to pay an interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the fist benefit amount (Rs.54,000/-) for seven months and thereby the amount would be Rs.2835/-.
7.          It is evident from the record that for default of the complainant, he had to prosecute  the opp.parties by incurring a good sum in payment of fees to his advocates and in visiting the office of this forum in different dates. So, we hold that the Opp.Party No.1 & 2 side is liable to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceeding.
8.      Because of what has been discussed as above, the complaint against Opp.Party No.1  & 2 is allowed on contest , but against Opp.Party No.3 is   dismissed, and Opp.Party No.1 & 2 are directed to pay the complainant Rs.2,835/- in the head of interest on first money-back benefit with interest of at the rate of 12% p.a. from 22.1.2010 till full satisfaction of the award and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation, and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceeding, to which they are jointly and severally liable. They are directed to pay the said amounts within two months, in default of which , the other two amounts would also carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a.

Given under our hands and seal of this forum on this day 27^th April, 2016.

Free copies of judgment be delivered to the parties.

(Md.S.Hussain)

President

 (Mr.U.N.Deka)                                                         

 Member