1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he had obtained Policy No.010858042 w.e.f. 28.03.1974 from the OP with half yearly premium of Rs.673.10 for a sum assured of Rs.15,000/- and after maturity of the policy, the complainant submitted policy certificate with the OP claiming maturity amount but the OP sat over the matter. It is submitted that after repeated request the OP on 03.10.2016 released an amount of Rs.27, 755/- deducting an amount of Rs.337.50. The complainant further submitted that the policy matured during 03/1999 but the OP for wrongful gain with held the maturity the maturity amount and if the maturity amount of the policy deposited in any bank, the same would have yielded interest. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to pay Rs.1.00 lac towards compensation to the complainant.
2. The OP filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the policy bearing No.10858042 dt.28.3.1974 obtained by the complainant for a term of 25 years with yearly mode of premium at Rs.673.10 for a sum of assured of Rs.15, 000/- and the policy matured on 28.3.1999. It is contended that an intimation was sent along with discharge voucher before due date of maturity advising the complainant to submit discharge voucher duly signed along with original policy bond but the complainant neither submitted the documents nor raised any complaint before the LIC authorities at any point of time. It is further contended that on 19.9.2016 the complainant submitted discharge voucher, bank details and Indemnity Bond in lieu of original policy bond and the OP has released an amount of Rs.27, 755/- to the bank account of the complainant on 27.09.2016 by deducting Rs.337/- from his claim. The OP submitted that Rs.337/- was erroneously calculated by the module towards refund of accident benefit extra, which was deducted at the time of final settlement. Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of his case. Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.
4. In this case, policy bearing No.10858042 commenced from 28.03.1974 obtained by the complainant for 25 years with yearly mode of payment for a sum assured of Rs.15, 000/- and the date of maturity as 03/1999 are all admitted facts. The case of the complainant is that he deposited the policy with the OP for payment of maturity amount but the OP postponed the payment on the plea that the policy is not traceable and misplaced and at last on 03.10.2016 the OP released an amount of Rs.27, 755/- by deducting Rs.337.50 which was due to be paid in 03/1999.
5. With regard to deduction of Rs.337/-, the OP stated that they released an amount of Rs.27, 755/- to the account of the complainant on 27.9.2016 by deducting Rs.337/- which was erroneously calculated by the module towards refund of accident benefit extra, which was deducted at the time of final settlement. The complainant stated that the OP has not informed as to why such deduction was made from the amount. It is seen from the record that on 27.9.2016, the OP while effecting final payment has issued a letter of even date in which they have given the details of net claim amount. On the payment side of said document, the OP has added extra refund of Rs.337.50 but deducted the same amount in the deduction side. According to the OP, Rs.337.50 was calculated erroneously by the module towards refund of accident benefit extra which was deducted at the time of final payment. In absence of any evidence that the complainant is eligible for accident benefit extra, the complainant is not entitled for the said benefit and hence the deduction is genuine.
6. The complainant stated that the policy matured in 03/1999 and he submitted policy with the OP but on contact the OP stated that the policy document is not traceable and misplaced. If the policy document is not traceable and misplaced with the OP, it is not the mistake of the complainant. It can be settled basing on the documents submitted by the complainant. The OP stated that before maturity, they have sent discharge voucher to the complainant and requested him to furnish discharge voucher duly signed along with original policy bond but the complainant did not turn up. On the other hand the complainant stated that he submitted policy with the OP but the OP stated that the policy document is misplaced.
7. In the above context, it is to be seen as to whether the claim can be postponed due to missing of policy documents with the OP. The complainant stated that he submitted the policy with the OP but the said contention of the complainant is not supported by any evidence. He has also not filed copy of his policy bond in this case. The OP on the other hand stated that on 19.09.2016 the complainant submitted discharge voucher, bank details and Indemnity Bond in lieu of original policy bond and basing on those documents they released the maturity claim on 27.09.2016. As per the provisions, once the documents are submitted by the policy holder, it is the responsibility of the OP to settle the claim. It is not a fact that due to missing of policy docket with the OP, the claim can be postponed. As there is no evidence that the complainant has submitted the document after maturity of the policy, we do not see any merit in the allegations of the complainant. Rather on submission of required documents by the complainant, the OP has settled the claim within a week period. Further, the complainant is not entitled for Rs.337/- as deducted by the OP as we hold supra.
8. In view of the above facts, we do not find any merit in the case of the complainant which needs to be dismissed. In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant having no merit and parties are to bear their own costs.
(to dict.)
