Tamil Nadu
South Chennai
CC/15/2022
T. Ravi Kumar - Complainant(s)
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation and another - Opp.Party(s)
T. Ravi Kumar
05 Jun 2023
ORDER
Date of Complaint Filed:26.07.2021
Date of Reservation :23.05.2023
Date of Order :05.06.2023
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.
PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L., : PRESIDENT
THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L., : MEMBER I
THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA., : MEMBER II
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.15/2022
MONDAY,THE 5th DAY OF JUNE 2023
T Ravi Kumar,
Advocate,
Meenakshi Bhavanam,
Plot No.31, D No.25/17,
Puzhudivakkam Main Road,
Puzhudivakkam 600 091. .. Complainant.
-Vs-
1.Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Rep by its Chairman,
Corporate Office:
5th floor, West Wing,
Yogakshema,
Jeevan Meena Marg,
Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021
Maharastra State.
2.Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Zonal Office,
PB No.2456,
153, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002. .. Opposite Parties.
* * * * *
Counsel for the Complainant : M/s. T. Ravi Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Parties : M/s. M.B. Gopalan Associates, N. Vijayaraghavan, M.B Raghavan
On perusal of records and upon hearing the oral arguments of the counsel for Complainant and the counsel for the Opposite Parties this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
Pronounced by Member-II, Thiru. S. Nandagopalan., B.SC., MBA.,
(i) The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to pay the Complainant interest for the maturity amount from 10.01.2021 to 05.02.2021, at the rate of 18% till the date of making payment and to issue acknowledgement to all the documents /papers/letters etc received at its offices and make its officers accountable for the loss ad to pay the Policy Holders (including the Complainant) the amount as promised during the inception of policy or maturity of the policy, which ever is higher and to deposit damages in the Consumer Protection fund the amount which may be determined by this Hon’ble Commission along with cost of this litigation.
I. The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-
1. The Complainant took an Educational Endowment Policy in the year 2013, for his son Niranjan Ram. The Policy number is 713502669. The Complainant had to pay Rs.13,645/- yearly policy. The Complainant has been paying the Policy amount without any default. The Policy was taken through the City Branch office 2, then situated in Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai-600014.
2. The Complainant submitted that the Policy was to mature in the Month of January 2021. As a condition for receiving the Maturity amount the Original Policy Document, along with the NEFT forms has to be surrendered to the Opposite Party. The Complainant submits that he submitted the necessary forms through his agent in the Year 2020. However the concerned Branch City Branch office 2, seems to have misplaced the documents and hence the Policy amount was not Credited to the Account on the due date of Maturity, viz, 10,01.2021.
3. The Complainant submitted that the documents submitted by the Complainant in the year 2020, were misplaced by the City Branch -2. In the meantime, the office of the City Branch -2, had also shifted its address and the same has not been still notified to the customers and the address changed in its website. This itself is Deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties and the Policy Holders have every right to know the address of the office where the Policy is available, so that he/she can approach the officers in case of any difficulty.
4. The Complainant again submitted the necessary forms, in the month of January 2021, as the maturity amount was not received in time. This form was also misplaced and it's only when the Complainant met the administrative Officer in City Branch -2, personally on 04.02.2021, the maturity amount was finally received by the Complainant on 06.02.2021.
5. The Complainant submitted that at the time of taking the Policy it was mentioned that the approximate amount of maturity would be Rs.6,00,000/- i.e., Sum Assured Rs.2,50,000/- plus Bonus of Rs.3,50,000/-. However What was received is only Rs.4,58,250/- on 06.02.2021.
6. The Complainant submitted that whenever the Policy Holders default in paying the Premiums on time, the Opposite Parties are charging interest. In the instant case, the Opposite Parties have delayed the payment by 1 month because of their Gross Negligence of duty. Hence they are liable to compensate, the Complainant, at the same rate they charge of the Policy
Holders, if the premium amounts are paid late.
7. The Complainant submitted that, the Opposite Parties used to invest the amounts received from the Policy premiums in Good and High Yielding returns and thus declare Bonus to the Policy Holders. However the Opposite Parties was forced by the Government of India to invest in Railway Infrastructure to the tune of Rs.1.5 Trillion which yields return at the Government Security rates which ranges from 1% to maximum 4% therefore depriving Policy Holders like the Complainant Assured Returns.
8. The Complainant is therefore filing this complaint, on behalf of similarly situated policy holders termed as a Class Action Suit, filed on behalf of similarly placed policy holders. Hence the complaint.
II. Written Version filed by the Opposite Parties in brief are as follows:
9. The allegations in the complaint are hereby denied except those that are specifically admitted. The complaint is not bonafide but abuse of Consumer Protection Act. Without any justification the Opposite Parties are being dragged into this litigation based on exaggerated, imaginary grievances and allegations which are baseless and contrary to truth. Neither the averments in the complaint nor the supporting documents even remotely make out any case of deficiency in service as alleged by Complainant. The complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine.
10. The Opposite Parties submit at the outset that there is no justification for impleading the Chairman, LIC of India separately in the present proceeding. Admittedly Complainant had taken the Policy from the 2nd Opposite Party which had exclusively serviced the same since 2001 for more than 20 years and paid the maturity sum on 06.02.2021. The complaint is filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Forum based on the office of the 2nd Opposite Party, an independent Branch Office. Even the complaint averments of deficiency in service are made against the 2nd Opposite Party and as such there is no cause of action whatsoever to array the Chairman in the litigation except to harass and intimidate the public official. No averment is made against the 1st Opposite Party. Such harassment is for extraneous reasons known only to the Complainant but causes grave hardship and prejudice to the public undertaking and its functionaries. The Opposite Parties therefore submit that the 1st Opposite Party be deleted from the array of parties in limine.
11. The Opposite Parties submit that Complainant had availed life Policy No.713502669 for a Sum Assured of Rs.2,50,000/- commencing from 10.01.2003 subject to payment of annual premium of Rs.13,645/- for a term of 18 years. It is submitted that throughout the period the Opposite Parties had run the risk of covering the Policyholder's life for which premium was paid, over and above which the Sum Assured was agreed to be paid on Maturity with Bonus upon survival on maturity date of 10.01.2021.
12. While the Policy matured on 10.01.2021, the 2nd Opposite Party received the original Policy bond along with discharge from the Complainant on 02.02.2021. On the basis of the same, the maturity sum of Rs.4,58,250/- comprising basic sum assured of Rs.2,50,000/- and accrued bonus of Rs.2,08,250/- was immediately settled on 06.02.2021 by 2nd Opposite Party, within four days of receipt of the Policy bond and discharge. There was no delay on the part of the 2nd Opposite Party in settlement of the claim as Soon as the documents were received. The claim could not have been settled earlier.
13. The allegations of the Complainant as if certain documents were submitted by the Complainant in 2020 through an agent (undisclosed), that the documents were misplaced and that the 2nd Opposite Party shifted its office without any intimation, that necessary forms were again submitted in the month of January 2021 and that the Complainant personally met the officer of 2nd Opposite Party on 02.02.2021 after which payment was received on 06.02.2021 are all not only incorrect and without basis but also vague. There are no material particulars in the complaint as to what documents are being referred to, the details of the agent, the date of submission of the documents on different occasions etc.
14. Except the original policy bond and the discharge, no other document is required for maturity settlement. The same was received on 02.02.2021 by the 2nd Opposite Party and immediately payment was settled. It is false to state that any document had been submitted earlier or misplaced. In fact there was no necessity to submit documents in 2020. Before the complaint, there is no evidence of any grievance ever made regarding the same.
15. The shifting of the 2nd Opposite Party Branch was made out of necessity and it was not only clearly notified in the premises which were vacated for the benefit of any customers who were unaware, but also advertised in newspapers. It is pertinent that the office had been shifted even on 14.02.2020 and well-known to policyholders who raised no complaint whatsoever. The 2nd Opposite Party continued to service the Policyholders without any disruption from the new office. The Complainant is falsely blaming the Opposite Party of lack of intimation when they have rendered prompt service by settling the claim within four days of submission of the Policy bond.
16. It is denied that there was any promise of bonus of Rs.3,50,000/-, The Complainant who was covered for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from day one of the insurance and paying annual premium of Rs.13,645/- has received substantial returns of Rs4,58,250/- in addition to the risk coverage. As such allegations of returns not being as promised are neither justified nor bona fide but for the purpose of the complaint without any basis or truth.
17. The Opposite Parties vehemently deny the allegations of delay of one month in settlement of the claim because of gross negligence on the part of 2nd Opposite Party in para 6. The Opposite Parties reiterate that the claim had been settled on 06.02.2021, within four days of receipt of the policy bond on 02.02.2021. The demand for interest is unsustainable.
18. The Opposite Parties vehemently deny the allegations of delay of one month in settlement of the claim because of gross negligence on the part of 2nd Opposite Party in para 6. The Opposite Parties reiterate that the claim had been settled on 06.02.2021, within four days of receipt of the policy bond on 22 2021. The demand for interest is unsustainable.
19. It is humbly submitted that neither the allegations in the complaint nor the documents make out any basis for treating the present complaint as any class action suit There are neither facts nor anybody of individuals indicated to justify such allegations or any class action In any case, there is no basis for complaint when the Opposite Parties have promptly settled the maturity amount in accordance with the policy terms. The Complainant has not demonstrated either by pleading or by proof that there was any lapse in regard to the quantum of benefits settled under the policy. It is pertinent that bonus rates are regularly declared every month and well known to the policyholders. The Complainant who never raised any grievance for more than 20 years has filed the present complaint with some ulterior motives. The complaint is not bona fide. There is no cause of action for the complaint hence it is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs in the interest of justice.
III. The Complainant has filed his proof affidavit, in support of his claim in the complaint and has filed 8 documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A8. The Opposite Parties have submitted their proof affidavit and Ex.B1 to B6 documents were marked on their side. Both sides written arguments filed.
V. Points for Consideration:-
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?
3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?
POINT NO. 1 :-
20. On careful perusal of records of both the parties and their admissions it is well founded that the Complainant availed a Marriage Endowment / Educational Policy from the Opposite Parties for his son named Niranjan Ram bearing policy No.713502669 on 10.01.2003 for a term of 18 years with a premium payable of Rs.13,645/- and the last premium payment being 10.01.2020 with the maturity date on 10.01.2021 as seen in Ex.A-1 & Ex.B-3 dated 10.01.2003. Moreover, the Complainant submitted that without any default he paid the policy premiums as per the timelines and there is dispute over the same by the Opposite Parties. The Exhibits A-2 & A-3 are the communication letters in regard to the policy norms and conditions sent by the Opposite Party dated 01.01.2003 & 06.02.2003 respectively. The Contention of the Complainant is that the Opposite Parties failed to settle the maturity sum as per the policy terms on the stipulated date i.e 10.01.2021 instead settled the maturity sum on 06.02.2021.
21. Further the Complainant contended that as a condition to receive the Maturity amount he surrendered the Original policy document along with the NEFT forms through his agent in the year 2020 itself to the Opposite Party, since the documents were misplaced by the Opposite Party they failed to credit the maturity sum amount to the account on the maturity due date i.e on 10.01.2021 and Complainant further alleged that the Opposite Parties failed to notify the customers in regard to the shifting of office to the new address claiming it as a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties by not providing the address for further communications. It is pertinent to note that the Complainant failed to disclose any materialistic evidence or acknowledgements to substantiate the claim of hand overing the NEFT forms along with Original Policy Document to the Opposite Parties in the year 2020. Moreover as per Ex.B-1 & B-2 it is admissible that the Opposite Parties took relevant steps to intimate the customers about the shifting of office to new premises by advertising the same in daily newspapers dated 14.02.2020 itself ensuring that no disruption in services caused towards the Policy holders.
22. Furthermore the Complainant contended that the Opposite Parties awarded a lesser bonus in contrast to the committed maturity amount of Rs.3,50,000/- for which Opposite Parties denied the grievance by disputing that there is no such promise made. The policy document, Ex.A-1 would show that on the date of maturity the Policy Holder is entitled for the sum assured + vested bonus, and no amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was fixed by the Opposite Parties. On further examination of the documents the Opposite Parties submitted that during the pandemic period i.e from March 2020 to February 2021 their services were severely handicapped due to lockdowns and restrictions forcing them to limit employees attendance is the reason for their inability to remit payments immediately. However despite the adverse working conditions Opposite Parties received the papers as seen in Ex.B-4 i.e Discharge voucher dated 02.02.2021 consisting the NEFT mandate details of the Complainant alongside receiving the Original Policy document and further Opposite Parties submitted that within 4 days they settled the claim amount to the Complainant i.e on 06.02.2021.
23. As per the facts and circumstances of the case alongside the respective submissions of both the parties and on merits we are of a considered view that the Opposite Parties deficiency is noted as per Ex.B-4 & B-5 in not maintaining the records of the Complainant towards the policy maturity settlement and also by not complying to the given timeline in settling the maturity amount as per the policy norms by allowing the Complainant to suffer is admissible. Henceforth the complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Parties are liable to compensate the Complainant for the delay in settling the maturity amount as per the Policy norms. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.
POINTS NO 2 & 3:
24. As discussed and decided in Point No.1 against the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties are liable to pay interest on the maturity amount of Rs.4,58,250/- for a period from 10.01.2021 to 05.02.2021 at the rate of 9% and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation to the Complainant. Accordingly, Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The 2nd Opposite Party is directed to pay interest on the maturity amount of Rs.4,58,250/- (Rupees Four Lakh Fifty Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Only) for a period from 10.01.2021 to 05.02.2021 at the rate of 9% and a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards cost of the litigation to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The complaint against 1st Opposite Party stands dismissed.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 5th of June 2023.
S. NANDAGOPALAN T.R. SIVAKUMHAR B.JIJAA
MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-
Ex.A1 |
| Policy Document |
Ex.A2 |
| Letter from the agent |
Ex.A3 |
| Letter from the Branch Manager CBO2 |
Ex.A4 |
| Paper cutting regarding investment by LIC in Railways |
Ex.A5 |
| Affidavit |
Ex.A6 |
| Notice to produce documents |
Ex.A7 |
| Endorsement of the Hon’ble Commission |
Ex.A8 |
| Information regarding appeal before the Central Information |
List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-
Ex.B1 |
| Notice of shifting of address put up in the old Office |
Ex.B2 |
| Newspaper advertisement of the shifting of office |
Ex.B3 |
| Police Bond Bearing No.713502669 on the life of Sri T. Ravikumar clearly mentioning the Maturity Claim payable |
Ex.B4 |
| Discharge voucher submitted by the Complainant acknowledged on 02.02.2021 |
Ex.B5 |
| Letter dated 05.02.2021 addressed to the Complainant confirming the receipt of NEFT mandate form |
Ex.B6 |
| Letter dated 06.02.2021 addressed to the Complainant informing settlement of maturity claim to his Bank Account |
S. NANDAGOPALAN T.R. SIVAKUMHAR B.JIJAA
MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.