BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 20^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. This   complaint has been filed under section 35 of C.P.Act, 2019 for the following reliefs.

a)The opponents to held to be guilty of deficiency in service of settling the claim amount of policy bearing no.722016677 and directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on the policy along with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the date of maturity i.e.28.02.2019 to till realization.

b) The opponents be directed to return the original the original policy bond to the complainant.

c)The opponents  be further directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and compensation toward loss of time.

d) The costs of this complaint of Rs.1,00,000/- be awarded.

e) The permission to amend the complaint as and when necessary

f) any other relief as deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:

The complainant took the policy from OPs subject to payment of monthly premium of Rs.2,444/- for policy bearing no.722016677. He paid premium from 28.03.2009 to 28.08.2019. After expiry of policy period he approached the OPs for payment of entire amount as per terms and conditions of the policy. In response to his legal notice, OPs issued vague reply dt.08.06.2020. Non reimbursement of claim by the OPs amounts to deficiency of service.  Hence, this complaint.

3. In response to the notice, the OPs appear  though their counsel and file version. They contend that the complaint has not come to this commission with clean hands. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service.

They admit that the complainant took the policy bearing no.722016677 dt.28.03.2009 for a sum assured of Rs.2,00,000/- under Salary Savings Scheme mode, payment of monthly premium of Rs.2,444/-. The  recovery of premium through salary was stopped on 28.08.2018. Non-payment of premium from August 2018 to February 2019 is Rs.14,664/- with interest of Rs.403.70 was recovered from the claim amount of the complainant.  The question of sending stop recovery of premium does not arise.

4. It is further case of the complainant that the amount payable  under survival benefit was Rs.2,75,200.37ps, but after deducting unpaid premium amount of Rs.14,664, interest their on Rs.403.70, policy loan amount of Rs.1,47,450/- and other deductions Rs.73.67ps was recovered and net amount of Rs.62,932/- was paid to the account of the complainant  on 28.03.2019.

5. The policy bond was sent to the address of the complainant on 18.06.2020, but returned with an endorsement that the addressee left send back on 19.06.2020. The complainant has not furnished the present address to the OPs. There is no deficiency of service. Therefore, the OPs are requested to dismiss the complaint as there is no cause of action with costs.

6. The complainant was called upon to file affidavit evidence. Despite order dt.06.10.2020 to 22.02.2022 the complainant fails to file affidavit evidence. The OPs have filed affidavit evidence and got marked 10 documents on 12.04.2022.

7. Despite opportunities granted to both parties, no arguments is advanced till this date. Arguments of both parties is taken as nil. Perused records.

8.  The following points arise for our consideration are as under:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of the OPs?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

9. Our answer to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1 & 2:-Negative

      Point no.3:-As per the final order.

REASONS

10. Point No.1&2:. Even the complainant fails to file affidavit evidence, but certain facts have been proved through affidavit evidence of Ops with documentary evidence.

11. Therefore, it is necessary to refer the admitted documents. The complainant took the policy bearing no.72206677 and monthly premium payable  was Rs.2,444/- till 28.02.2019. The date of birth of the complainant is 21.08.1958, it means the complainant attained age of superannuation in August 2018. It means the complainant was liable to pay monthly premium from August 2018 till 28.02.2019. This fact is proved from exhibit-R1, copy of the policy. Exhibit R-2 is indicate that the complainant by depositing this policy on 21.05.2012 availed loan. Exhibit R-2 indicates that the complainant was called upon to furnish NEFT mandatory form on 29.04.2015. Exhibit R3 indicates that sum of Rs.1,46,450/- was due from the loan amount with interest. The complainant has not mentioned this fact in his complaint, it indicates that the complainant suppressed the fact of the taking loan. Exhibit R-4 dt.11.03.2019 indicates that the survival benefit mentioned details basic sum assured, bonus, deductions, unpaid premium, interest thereon, the loan amount, interest thereon in all total deductions of Rs.2,12,268.37ps and net amount payment was Rs.62,932/-. According to the claim voucher they transferred an amount of Rs.62,932/- by means of cheque by NEFT was paid on 28.03.2019.

12. The exhibit R6-R7 indicate that attempt was made to return the original bond, the policy bond  returned with on endorsement  as addressee left. According to Exhibit R-6  the address of the complainant on 17.06.2020 was Mysuru. Therefore,  OPs was forced to retain the original policy. This complainant is preceded by exchange of legal notices between the advocate for complainant and OPs. Exhibit R-9 is reply dt.04.07.2020 to the legal notice of the complainant, wherein the OPs have specifically stated that the net amount of Rs.62,932/- by means of NEFT transferred. In the absence of denied of that transaction of the amount through NEFT and non-disclosure of this fact amounts to suppression of the facts. It clearly indicates that the complainant has approached this commission with uncleaned hands. The Exhibit R-10  is copy of resolution of authorization RW1 O.Raghavendra Sharma to represent OPs.

13. Even after considering the admitted facts and evidence of OPs, it has been proved that the complainant was entitled to Rs.62,932/- after deducting loan amount, interest there on, unpaid monthly premium, interest there on out of policy sum assured of Rs.2,00,000/- and bonus of Rs.75,000/-. Under such circumstances, there is no deficiency of service. Accordingly, the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs.

14. Point no.3: In view of the discussions referred above, the complaint requires to be dismissed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following

O R D E R

1. The complaint is dismissed without cost.
2. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties and return extra pleadings with documents to the parties.  

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 20^th  day of August, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant-PW.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite parties-RW1: