By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant was approached by an agent of LIC and she had given the proposal to join the scheme of wealth plus. The scheme launched with wide publicity and attractive offers. The information of the representative of the LIC was such that the policy holder will be having 2 years additional coverage after policy period with an upper age limit of 65 years. Inspired by the attractive offer in policy, the Complainant had undergone medical test and the amount was deposited withdrawing the fixed deposit of the Complainant to join the scheme of LIC. After deposit of the amount a notice was sent to the Complainant that she could not be included in the scheme being she had the age of 60 and unemployed. The Complainant could have not turned over to the proposal if it was informed to the Complainant. The rejection of the proposal after deposit of the amount by the Opposite Party is a deficiency in service. The Complainant is to be compensated with Rs.30,000/- and towards cost Rs.5,000/-.

2. The Opposite Parties filed version in short it is as follows:- The Complainant does not come within the domain of Consumer Protection Act. The Wealth plus plan scheme is newly launched attractive one by the LIC. The Complainant submitted voluntarily the proposal for the Wealth Plus Scheme and paid Rs.1,00,000/-. Mere proposal and deposit of the amount cannot be treated valid. The acceptance of proposals are as per underwriting principles categorized 1, 2 and 3. The Complainant completed age of 60 since the Complainant completed 60 years who found to be not eligible for LIC's Wealth Plus Plan and she was not tax assess. The rejection of the proposal of the Complainant cannot counted as a deficiency in service. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

3. Points in consideration are:-

1. Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

4. Points No.1 and 2:- The Complainant and Opposite Parties filed proof affidavits, Exts.A1 to A3, B1 and B2 are the documents produced. The oral testimony of the Complainant and Opposite Party is also considered.

5. According to the Complainant for the inception to the wealth plus policy of the Complainant Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited on 08.05.2010 and the proposal was given to the Opposite Party for admission. The offer of the Opposite Party for the policy of LIC's Wealth Plus exemplifies in the brochure. The inception of the party to the scheme is based on the underwriting principles of the insurer. On verification of the documents it is seen that the Complainant deposited Rs.1,00,000/- in the Opposite Party branch. Mere deposit of the amount does not make the person entitled for the risk coverage of the scheme. On examination of the Opposite Party it is also admitted that the application could have rejected rightly from the outset and the circumstance for the deposited of the amount could have not drawn to. The proposal deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- was sent to the Complainant as cheque on 29.05.2010 and the Complainant had also undergone medical check up and other formalities required for her inception to the scheme. The contention of the Opposite Party is that the applicants comes under the category 3 of the underwriting principles, therein the Complainant is not eligible for her inception to the Wealth Plus Scheme of insurance. It cannot be considered that the 1^st Opposite Party is not having any knowledge of the underwriting principles which make the applicant eligible for inception to the scheme. It is true that a mere deposit of an amount and the offer of a proposal is not a criteria to consider the applicants eligible for inception to the scheme. In this case the Complainant had to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- and the proposal was given. The deposited amount was pertained by the Opposite Party more than 20 days in their custody and later it was given back to the Complainant. The circumstances which lead to the rejection of the application could have avoid in the first instance and this is nothing other than a deficiency in service. The Complainant is to be compensated with interest for the period of the sum kept in deposit.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed to give Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to the Complainant as compensation including interest for the deposited amount along with cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only). This is to be complied by the Opposite Party within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30^th September 2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the Complainant:

Nil.

Witness for the Opposite Party:

OPW1. Subba Naik. B. Divisional Manager

Exhibit for the Complainant:

A1. Copy of Proposal Deposit Receipt.

A2. Letter. dt:19.5.2010.

A3. Notice.

Exhibit for the Opposite Party:

B1. Proposal for LIC's Wealth Plus dt:07.05.2010.

B2. Copy of Letter. dt:01.03.2005.