Punjab

Sangrur

CC/424/2017

Karampal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Life Insurance of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Rajan Kapil

08 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  424

                                                Instituted on:    23.08.2017

                                                Decided on:       08.12.2017

 

Karampal Singh so of Balwinder Singh R/o Village Bijalpur, P.O. Ghanaur  Jattan via Bhawanigarh, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

L.I.C. office, Railway Road, Sangrur through Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Rajan Kapil, Adv.

For OP                     :       Shri Amit Goyal, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Karampal Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that during the life time of mother of the complainant, namely, Smt. Surinder Kaur took an insurance policy bearing number 162025940 with date of proposal as 30.01.2001 and date of commencement as 28.11.2000 with the maturity date as 28.11.2016 for Rs.1,00,000/-from the OP.  The premium payable was to the tune of Rs.6714/- on yearly basis.  The case of the complainant is that the mother of the complainant got missed on 27.11.2015 and the LRs of the insured Surinder Kaur filed a civil suit for declaration for declaring Surinder Kaur as civilly dead, which was decreed on 5.11.2016.  The grievance of the complainant is that though he has though submitted all the requisite documents to the OP, but the OP wrongly deducted an amount of Rs.25,000/- from the sum insured and calculated the bonus on that amount and by this way, the OP paid less amount of Rs.25,000/- and bonus thereon. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.36,000/- and interest from 28.11.2016 to 2017 and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by the OP, preliminary objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant has dragged the OPs into unwanted litigation. On merits, it is admitted that the insured Surinder Kaur had obtained an insurance policy bearing number 162025940 for the insured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with date of commencement as 28.11.2000 and date of maturity as 28.11.2016. It is also stated that the premium had been paid upto 11/2011. It is stated that the complainant had lodged the claim and the OP paid bonus of Rs.58,800/- to the complainant by taking the insured sum as Rs.75,000/- instead of Rs.1,00,000/-.  It is further averred that the policy commenced on 28.11.2000 and date of maturity was 28.11.2016 and the life insured got missed in the year 2005 and civil court decree was passed on 5.11.2016, whereas premiums under the policy were paid only till 11/2011 and no premium was paid thereafter, as such the policy was in lapsed condition.  It is stated that the OP has already paid an amount of Rs.1,33,800/- (i.e. taking assured as Rs.75,000/- and vested bonus as Rs.58,800/-) as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is stated that since the policy was in lapsed condition, so the paid up value was calculated as per clause 4 of the terms and conditions of the policy. It is stated further that the OP has rightly and legally reduced the sum assured under the policy to Rs.75,000/- from Rs.1,00,000/- as per the above said terms and conditions.   The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 copies of the documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-17 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the life insured Smt. Surinder Kaur was insured under the policy number 162025940 dated 30.01.2001 which commenced on 28.11.2000 for the insured sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that the life insured got missed on 27.11.2005 and the LRs filed a civil suit for declaring Surinder Kaur as civilly dead which was decreed by the civil court on 5.11.2016, as such the complainant submitted the documents to the OP for making the payment of claim amount.  But further grievance of the complainant is that the OP paid only an amount of Rs.1,33,800/- by taking the insurance as Rs.75,000/- only instead of Rs.1,00,000/- and also calculated the bonus thereon accordingly and has contended that by doing so the OP is deficient in service by withholding the amount of Rs.36,000/-.  On the other hand, the stand of the OP is that the OP has rightly settled the claim at Rs.1,33,800/- by taking the insurance as Rs.75,000/- in view of clause 4 of the terms and conditions of the policy as the complainant did not pay the premium after 11/2011, whereas the life insured was declared dead vide decree dated 5.11.2016, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP-4.  There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that when he paid the premium after 27.11.2005 (date of missing of the life assured) till 11/2011, then why the premium was not paid thereafter by the complainant.  In the circumstances, we feel that the policy in question remained in lapsed condition since 11/2011 and accordingly the OP reduced the insured amount in view of clause 4 of the terms and conditions of the policy.  As such, we feel that the OP have acted in accordance with the rules and regulations and according to the terms and conditions  and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

 

6.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is, therefore, dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        December 8, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member