Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 380
Instituted on : 06.08.2019
Decided on : 29.03.2024
Mahender Singh Gaur s/o Sh. Raghunath Sahai, Age 75 years r/o H.No.317/6, KalalanMohalla, MabndirWaliGaliRohtak.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
Life Insurance Corporation of India, CAB Branch, Delhi Road Rohtak through its Branch Manager.
...........……Respondent/opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.PuneetChahal, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that the agent of the opposite party approached the complainant and convinced him to purchase the policy i.e. Market Plus-1 and it was disclosed by the agent that if he paid one time premium of Rs.100000/-, on maturity he will get a good benefit/return under the Growth plan. Complainant purchased a policy of opposite party bearing no.176013250 dated 27.10.2008 and paid the premium of Rs.100000/- and term of policy was 10 years. The date of maturity of policy was 27.10.2018. The complainant applied for refund of the policy in advance on 11.10.2017 and submitted all the requisite documents to the opposite party but the opposite party returned the aforesaid documents and asked him to submit the same after the date of maturity. The complainant submitted the documents on 27.12.2018 and requested to pay the maturity amount. But the opposite party refused to release the amount stating that as the maturity date has been expired, hence your case will be governed under Pension Scheme and after the death of the complainant the same will be paid to nominee as per the Pension Scheme. The complainant received a letter from the opposite party on 17.12.2018 for completing the formalities and complainant deposited the requisite paperson 27.12.2018. Complainant again provided all the information of his account for NEFT and the same was received in the office of opposite party on 20.02.2019 for transfer of maturity amount through NEFT in his account. But the opposite party did not make any payment and returned the papers to the complainant stating that the maturity date has been expired and the amount will be shifted to PensionScheme. The act and conduct of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to release the amount of maturity i.e. Rs.243256/- alongwith interest @ 18%, to pay Rs.100000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service &harassment and Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted thatthe opposite party issued a policy no.176013250 on the life of Mahender Singh Gaur with date of commencement 27.10.2008 under the plan and term 19/10/01 and maturity date 27.10.2018. The said policy is a unit link deferred pension plan. The complainant visited the office of opposite party on 27.12.2018 but till then policy vested in pension and as per policy condition, fund value of the units held in policyholder’s unit account will compulsorily be utilized to provide an annuity based on the prevailing immediate annuity rates under relevant annuity options. Policy holder can commute upto 1/3rd of the fund value of the units at the time of vesting of annuity, which will be paid in lump sum. However complainant insisted on surrender of the above policy after vesting date. The respondent corporation has to follow the law, rules and terms and conditions of the insurance according to the policy. The claim of the complainant is not genuine and the same has been dismissed. The complainant is not entitled for any relief against the opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed his evidence on dated 18.01.2021. Ld. Counsel for opposite partyhas tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 and closed his evidence on dated 28.04.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. In the present case the date of maturity of policy is 27.10.2018 but the maturity amount has not been paid by the insurance company to the complainant. Hence the present complaint has been filed by the complainant. As per reply and affidavit opposite party has submitted that “The said policy is a unit link deferred pension plan. The complainant visited the office of opposite party on 27.12.2018 but till then policy vested and pension is payable as per policy condition printed on the face of the policy bond, fund value of the units held in policyholder’s unit account will compulsorily be utilized to provide an annuity based on the prevailing immediate annuity rates under relevant annuity options. Policy holder can commute upto 1/3rd of the fund value of the units at the time of vesting of annuity, which will be paid in lump sum. However complainant insisted on surrender of the above policy after vesting date.It is necessary to mention here that the respondent corporation has to follow the law, rules and terms and conditions of the insurance according to the policy in question”. We have minutely perused the documents. No doubt on the face of the policy below mentioned condition is mentioned at Ex.R1: “An amount equal to the policy holder’s fund value at the vesting date, after allowing for an option to commute a maximum of one third of the policy holder’s fund value, shall be compulsorily be utilized to provide a pension based on the prevailing immediate annuity rates and other terms and conditions either from the Corporation or from any other Life insurance Company registered with IRDA”. Meaning thereby 1/3rdof the maturity amount was to be paid by the respondent to the complainant on the date of maturity but the insurance company failed to doso. We have minutely perused the document Ex.C7 a letter issued by the insurance company on dated 17.12.2018 to the complainant for submitting the required NEFT details mandate form and the same were submitted by the complainant with the agent of the insurance company namely Anju having agency code 0819-176 Rohtak. The perusal of this document itself shows that the maturity amount on dated 27.10.2018 was Rs.243250/- and NEFT detail has been submitted by the complainant. But this amount has not been transferred till date in the account of complainant by the respondent insurance corporation for the reasons best known to them. We have also of the opinion that if the complainant does not want to proceed with the pension plan, as per our opinion the insurance company should pay the maturity amount to the complainant because he had paid the premium amount of Rs.100000/- to the insurance company for the policy in question. So now he does not want to continue the policy, insurance company should pay the maturity amount to the complainant. Moreover 1/3rd amount was to be paid upto 27.10.2018 but the same has not been paid despite submitting of NEFT details by the complainant. It is also observed that the complainant has placed on record a document Ex.C12 on account of estimate of repair of house, as he was in need of money. Hence he requested the opposite party to pay the maturity amount but the same has not been paid to the complainant. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is liable to pay the maturity amount to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.243256/- (Rupees two lac forty three thousand two hundred and fifty six only) with other maturity benefits, if any,alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from 28.10.2018 to till its realizationand also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
29.03.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
