K.H. Rajappa filed a consumer case on 15 Jul 2010 against Life Insurance Corporation of India & one another in the Mysore Consumer Court. The case no is CC/10/223 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Karnataka
Mysore
CC/10/223
K.H. Rajappa - Complainant(s)
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India & one another - Opp.Party(s)
M.C. Dilip Kumar
15 Jul 2010
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSORE No.1542/F, Anikethana Road, C and D Block, J.C.S.T. Layout, Kuvempunagara, (Behind Jagadamba Petrol Bunk), Mysore-570009. consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/223
K.H. Rajappa
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Life Insurance Corporation of India & one another The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi 2. Sri A.T.Munnoli3. Sri. Shivakumar.J.
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J. B.A., L.L.B., - Member CC 223-10 DATED 15.07.2010 ORDER Complainant K.H.Rajappa, S/o Late Honnappa, D.No.S/803, 5th Main Road, 1st Stage, Srirampura, Vivekananda Nagara, Mysore. (By Sri.M.C.D, Advocate) Vs. Opposite Parties 1. Development Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mysore-Bangalore Main Road, Bannimantapa, Mysore. 2. Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, 2nd Division, Bannimantapa, Mysore. (By Sri. K.I.B, Advocate) Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service Date of filing of complaint : 31.05.2010 Date of appearance of O.P. : 15.06.2010 Date of order : 15.07.2010 Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER Sri. A.T.Munnoli, President 1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act against the opposite party, alleging deficiency in insurance service. 2. In the version filed by the second opposite party, allegations in the complaint are denied and it is contended that, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, premiums have been collected. It is stated that, there is no deficiency in service. 3. In support of his case, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. On the other hand, Administrative Officer of the opposite party has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. We have heard the arguments and perused the records. 4. Now, the point for our consideration is, whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that he is entitled to the reliefs? 5. Our finding is in negative, for the following reasons. REASONS 6. The fact that, the complainant has taken policy from the opposite parties bearing No.721777970 for a sum assured Rs.1,00,000/- and the premium amount of Rs.935/- for a period of 10 years, is admitted. 7. The grievance of the complainant is that, the opposite parties collected premiums each of Rs.935/- instead of Rs.835.50. Since, sum assured is Rs.1,00,000/- and in all 120 premiums are to be paid, as claimed by the complainant, would be each for Rs.833.50. But, it is relevant to note that, on the basis of the proposal accepting the same, policy has been issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. It was more than 10 years back. In the policy, premium agreed and accepted to be paid is Rs.935/-. When that is the agreed premiums payable by the complainant, now he cannot contend contrary. Opposite parties in the version have contended that, depending on the age of the complainant, as per the table fixed by the Corporation, the premium has been collected. 8. By the present complaint, the complainant has sought direction to the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.12,200/- alleging excess collection. It is worked out, taking into consideration, each premium of Rs.833.50. But, at the cost of repetition, as noted above, as per the terns and conditions of the policy, each premiums agreed to be paid were of Rs.935/- and accordingly, that has been paid. More than 10 years back, proposal was submitted and policy was issued and the terms and conditions are accepted by both the parties. Hence, under the circumstances, we found no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, we pass the following order: ORDER 1. The Complaint is dismissed. 2. There is no order as to costs. 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 15th July 2010) (A.T.Munnoli) President (Y.V.Uma Shenoi) Member (Shivakumar.J.) Member