JUDGEMENT<br /> By Sri. Pampapathi President:-<br /> This is a complaint filed by complainant Krupa Seva Samste, represented by its President, against the opposite LIC of India U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposite to issue renewal Master Policy Nos. GI 549142 & GI/JBY 549143, OCI 549139 & JBY 549135 and to set aside the unlawful cancellation of policy bonds bearing Nos. JBY No. 549135 and OGI 549139 and to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- with cost.<br /> <br /> 2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, the Krupa Seva Samste is the registered organization comprising various members who are below the poverty line ranging from age between 18-60 years. As a social welfare measure complainant’s samste purchased Master Policy bearing Nos. 549139 for (50) members at the rate of yearly premium of Rs. 100/- each. Similarly another Master Policy bearing Nos. JBY No. 549135 was purchased by (50) members by paying yearly premium amount of Rs. 100/- each. In the same way policy bearing No. GI 549142 a Group Insurance Scheme for another (129) members by paying premium of Rs. 100/- each. The Master Policy bearing Nos. GI/JBY 549143 under Janashree Bima Yojana was purchased by (129) members by paying premium amount of Rs. 100 per year. The complainant not issued original policy in respect of two policies and thereafter it unilaterally enhanced the premium rate of Rs. 630/- per member plus service tax in respect of Master Policy No. OGI 549139 and also it raised to the extent of Rs. 488/- plus service tax in respect of Policy No. OGI 549142 which is an unlawful demand. Thereafter opposite unilaterally closed the said scheme by intimating the complainant vide its letter dt. 16-06-10, as such opposite committed deficiency in its service and thereby Krupa Seva Samste filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in it. <br /> <br /> 3. The opposite LIC appeared in this case through their Advocate, filed written version by admitting the issuance of policy and collecting the premium it contended that, original Master Policy bearing No. 549143 was dispatched to the complainant samiti. Similarly it also issued Master Policy bearing No. 549142 it enhanced the premium of Master Policy bearing No. 549139 for Rs. 630/- per member with service tax with due intimation. In the same way the premiums of Master Policy No. 549142 enhanced to Rs. 488/- plus service tax as per the experience which is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. In the same way Master Policy bearing Nos. 549143 closed the scheme with effect from 01-06-10 with prior intimation to the complainant, as such there is no negligence on the part of it and thereby it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.<br /> <br /> 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that, opposite LIC not issued bonds even though it collected premiums in respect of Master Policy No. OGI 549139, Master Policy bearing No. JBY 549135, Master Policy bearing No. OGI 549142 and Master Policy bearing No. OGI/JBY 549143 in spite of repeated requests by the complainant samiti.?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether the complainant proves that, opposite LIC unilaterally enhanced renewal premium upto Rs 630 plus service tax per member in respect of Master Policy bearing No. OGI 549139 and also it enhanced the renewal premium amount upto 488/- plus service tax to each member of Master Policy No. OGI 549142 which amounts to deficiency in its service.?<br /> <br /> 3. Whether the complainant proves that, opposite LIC unilaterally cancelled the policy bonds bearing Nos. JBY 549135 and OGI 549139 which is an illegal act and thereby it committed deficiency in its service.?<br /> <br /> 4. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in this complaint.?<br /> <br /> 5. What order?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-<br /> <br /> (1) In the negative.<br /> <br /> (2) In the negative.<br /> <br /> (3) In the negative.<br /> <br /> (4) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 to 4, we proceed <br /> to pass the final order for the following :<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> POINT NO.1 :-<br /> <br /> 6. To prove the facts involved in these points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-12 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of opposite officer was filed, he was noted as RW-1. The documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 are marked.<br /> <br /> 7. On going through the facts pleaded by the parties, their respective affidavit-evidences and documents, issuance of Master Policy bearing No. OGI 549139 for (15) members by collecting yearly premium amount of Rs. 100/- each is not in dispute. Similarly issuance of another Master Policy bearing No. JBY 549135 for (15) members by collecting yearly amount of Rs. 100/- per member is also not in dispute. Issuance of Master Policy bearing No. 549142 and group insurance scheme of (129) members by collecting yearly amount of Rs. 100/- per ember is also not in dispute. In the same way issuance of another Master Policy bearing No. OGI/JBY 549143 Janashree Bima Yojana by collecting premium amount of Rs. 100/- from (129) by each member is also not in dispute. <br /> <br /> 8. As regards to non-issuance of original policy bonds bearing Master Policy Nos. 549139 & 549135 were dispatched by the LIC on 18-06-10 to the complainant samiti. No doubt complainant has contended that, those original policies not issued by the LIC but the affidavit-evidence of RW-1 and his further evidence clearly discloses with documentary evidences that, the original policy bonds of those numbers were issued in the year 2009. However now the LIC is ready to issue duplicate bonds of them, we are of the view that, no negligence is seen while issuing the original policy bonds of those numbers, even now the complainant is at liberty to get original policy bonds of those numbers from opposite with free of cost, as such Point No-1 is answered as in negative. <br /> <br /> 9. Now we have to see as to whether LIC has authorized to enhance the premium rates in respect of Master Policy bearing No. 549139 from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 630/- plus service tax and similarly enhancement of Rs. 488/- plus service tax per member in respect of Master Policy bearing No. 549142 from Rs. 100/-. In this regard General Condition No.7 of Master Policy No. OGI/JBY 549143 authorizes LIC to enhance the annual premium rate with prior notice. Similarly Condition No. 7 & 8 of Master Policy No. OGI 549142 authorizes LIC to make variations in annual renewal premium of the said policy with intimation. In this case, there are two prior notices by LIC dt. 26-03-10 & 24-03-10. In view of the terms and conditions of the said two policies, now the complainant cannot raise any objections with regard to variation made in the premiums of the said policies, the enhancement made by LIC is as per the terms and conditions of the said policies, as such we have not noticed any deficiency in service on the part of this opposite.<br /> <br /> 10. Now coming to next allegation of the complainant is that, LIC closed the scheme in respect of Master Policy bearing No. 549143 and it was intimated to it on 16-06-10 as the scheme was closed from 01-06-10. Ex.P-12 is the letter issued by opposite LIC by giving intimation to the complainant for closer of Master Policy bearing No. 549143 or any other policies as noted in the prayer column of the amended complaint. Condition No. 8(a) &(b) of Ex.P-7 shows in respect of rendering the policy as null and void with regard to contravention of clause No. (a) & (b) of Condition NO. 8. Under the said circumstances closer of the scheme pertaining to policy at Ex.P-7 or closer of the scheme in respect of the other policies as noted in the prayer column of the complaint is also in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policies. The complainant samiti is entitled to get the accrued amount in respect of the policies under closer scheme, as such we do not accept the contention of the complainant that, the closer of the scheme is unlawful. LIC is public undertaking institution looking after welfare of the public. It is the proper authority to decide to continue the scheme or to discontinue the scheme in the interest of public, as such we have not noticed any deficiency in service on the part of opposite LIC, accordingly we answered Point No. 1 to 3 in Negative.<br /> <br /> 11. In view of our findings on Point Nos- 1 to 3 the complainant is not entitled for any one of the relief’s as prayed in it.<br /> <br /> POINT NO.3:-<br /> <br /> 12. In view of our findings on Point Nos- 1 to 4, we proceed to pass the following order:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> This complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. <br /> Intimate the parties accordingly. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 13-01-2011)<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Pampapathi,<br /> President,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Gururaj, Member,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/- <br /> Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, <br /> Member. <br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />