BEFORE THE  DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;  DHARWAD.

DATE:11^th April 2014         

PRESENT:

1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha       : President

2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi             : Member

Complaint No.:2/2014  

Complainant/s:

1. Chamaraj Bangi, S/o. late P.M.Bangi, Age: 65 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o.Banashankarinagar, Dharwad-580008.
2. Suma D/o.Chamaraj Bangi, Age: 28 years, Occ: Service, R/o.3599, 5^th Cross, HAL 2^nd Stage, Bangalore -560008.

(In person)

v/s

Respondent/s:

1. Manager, LIC of India, Main Branch, college Road, Dharwad.
2. Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Office, college Road, Dharwad.

(By Sri.M.G.Gadgoli, Adv.)

3. K.Chandrahas, Insurance Ombudsman, 6-2-46, 1^st floor, Moin Court, A.C.Guards Lakdi ka Pool, Hyderabad.500004.

(sent a letter)

4. Grievance Redressal Officer, Consumer Affairs Department, IRDA, Parishram Bhavan, 3^rd floor, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500029.

(Exparte)

O R D E R

By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.

1.     The complainants have filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to release the insurance amount along with interest @ 18%, to award compensation of Rs.1 lakh each to the complainants, Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.     The case of the complainant in brief is that, the complainant.1 purchased an insurance policy in the name of his minor daughter i.e. complainant.2 for an assured sum of Rs.1 lakh on 21.02.1997 half yearly premium of Rs.3,347/- bearing policy No.630704494 to be matured on 21.02.2012. The complainant was paying premiums regularly. The respondent.1 prior to the maturity date sent a letter dtd.06.01.2012 informing the complainant of the maturity of the said policy along with calculation sheet to be payable after deductions from gross amount. After deduction payable amount is shown as Rs.31,360/-. By knowing the payable amount the complainant.1 with shock sent calculation letter on 14.01.2012 to the respondent.1 through speed post soughting clarification with regard to payable amount. Even after nearly 2 months the respondent.1 did not sent any reply. Again the complainant.1 sent letter to the respondent.2 on 08.03.2012 soughting for clarification. In the said letter the complainant also complained against the respondent.1 in not responding  to the letter of complainant dtd.14.01.2012 and for illegal withholding of the amount. Due to non response from respondent.1 and 2, on 13.04.2012 the complainant sent letter to respondent.3 complaining non response by respondent.1 and 2. Disgusted by respondent.1 to 3 on 31.05.2012 the complainant wrote letter to respondent.4 to explain with regard to illegality of respondent.1 to 3. Respondent.4 forwarded a letter on 31.05.2012 to respondent.1 with an intimation to complainant.1. The reply letter of respondent.4 dtd.13.06.2012 reached the complainant on 25.06.2012. The complainant believing respondent.1 and 2 would wake up to the letter of respondent.4 waited for long time but no avail. In the meantime respondent.3 sent an anti dated letter which reached complainant on 14.05.2012. By letter dtd.19.04.2012 respondent.3 expressed his inability to entertain the complainant for want of jurisdiction. A sum of Rs.31,360/- which has been stated in the letter of respondent.1 in the sheet of calculation enclosed along with his letter dtd.06.01.2012 ought to have been released by the respondent.1, but by withholding the same respondent has committed illegality. By suppressing the method of calculation and formula adopted the respondent.1 arrived at an exorbitant amount of Rs.36,007/- as interest on loan which is unfair act and also deficiency in service by the respondent.1. Hence, the complainants forced to file the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.

3.     In pursuance to the notice issued by this Forum the respondents.1 and 2 appeared through their advocate, while respondent.3 sent letter to this Forum stating that the respondent.3 is not a necessary party and he being an Ombudsman acts as a counselor and mediator between the complainant and insurer. While the respondent.3 despite of notice remained absent. Hence, placed exparte.

4.     The respondent.1 and 2 filed their detailed written version taking contention that, the complaint is false, frivolus, vexatious and as such is not maintainable either in law or on facts and prays for dismissal of complaint. The respondents also taken contention that the complainants do not comes within the definition of consumer as such complaint is not a consumer dispute and also pray for dismissal of complaint on those grounds. Further taken contention that the respondents have not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by complainant. Hence, there is no cause of action for the complaint. So also the respondent taken further contention that the complaint involved with complicated question of law and facts. Hence, this Forum has no jurisdiction and pray for to refer the matter to civil courts. Further the respondents among other admissions and denials admits the issuance of the policy. While the respondent denied the contention of the complainants that the calculation method adopted by the respondents is not proper and intentionally charged heavy interest on the loan amount. Further the respondents also taken contention that prior to the policy attains the date of maturity the complainant was informed with regard to the same through a letter requesting to comply the requirements and to furnish discharge form and NEFT details to enable the respondent to make payment of the maturity proceeds. Despite approach of the complainants through repeated letters and even after the respondent personally visited the complainants and requested to comply the mandatory requirements. Inspite of it, the complainants did not fulfill the mandatory requirements. Hence, the respondent could not able to make payment, as such the respondents have not committed any deficiency in service. The payment on the matured policy was withheld at the instance of the complainants only. Hence, the respondents pray for dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs.

5.     On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit. Relied on documents. The complainant apart from argument also relied on some citations and placed notes of argument.   Heard. Perused the records.

Finding on points is as under.

1. Accordingly 
2. Accordingly  
3. As per order

Reasons

Points 1 and 2

6.     On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant.1 had purchased insurance policy in the name of the complainant.2 who is the minor daughter at that time. Further there is also no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant has paid the premium in time and kept the policy in force. 

7.     Now the question to be determined is, whether the respondent has withhold the matured policy amount without any valid grounds and it amounts to a deficiency in service, if so, for what relief the complainants are entitled.

8.     The main grievance of the complainants are that the respondents inspite of the policy attained maturity the respondents without any valid grounds withhold the amount payable to the complainants and thereby have committed deficiency in service. In reply to this the respondents by producing the documents submits argument that, the respondents in usual course before the policy attained its maturity date sent letter on 06.01.2012 intimating the complainant of the date of maturity of the policy and to submit necessary papers and policy bond in original to enable the respondent to do payment in time. Inspite of the said intimation the complainant did not come forward and complied the requirements as such the respondents have not committed any deficiency in service. Further the learned counsel in continuation of his argument submits that, since the complainant did not furnished the necessary papers and the policy bond in question the respondents could not able to make payment. If the complainant furnished the documents along with NEFT, to enable the respondent to do the arrangement for payment the respondents are ready to pay the same.

9.     For this, the complainant objected and submits his argument stating that despite the complainant approaches the respondent, the respondent did not satisfy the complainant with regard to the deductions made and calculation arrived by the respondent. The main contention of the complainant is that the respondents have not calculated loan amount and have charged exorbitant interest on the loan amount against to the loan agreement. Even repeated approaches made to the respondent.1 the respondent.1 did not disclose the account statements pertaining to the loan account of complainant and further contended that, if proper accounts are taken the complainant is nothing to pay towards loan account. Hence, pray for allow of the complaint.

10.   In reply to this the respondent counsel drew the attention of this Forum to their documents at Sl.No.9 dtd.06.01.2012. On perusal of the same it reveals the respondent has sought for furnish the documents as discussed supra. With regard to the allegation of charging exorbitant interest the respondent drew the attention of this Fora to the document at Sl.No.6, wherein it the particulars of interest charged on the loan amount were shown in detail. So also with regard to the disputed calculation arrived by the respondent drew the attention to document Sl.No.10, wherein it the respondent clearly shown the details with regard to payments and deductions. According to it the total loan amount was Rs.88,000/-, interest on the loan amount is Rs.36,007/-. So taking into consideration of payments and deductions net payable amount will be Rs.31,360/-. Since the complainant has disputed the calculation arrived by the respondent, the respondent relied on loan interest calculation sheet as per document Sl.No.29, wherein it the calculation method is properly explained. Though the complainant disputes the calculation, the said dispute is made for mere reason for dispute purpose.

11.   After relied by the documents by the respondent the complainant did not disputes and objected for the calculation sheet and methods adopted in the said sheet. By this it is evident that the respondent insurance company properly done the calculation and they have not calculated any amount improperly by charging exorbitant interest as alleged by the complainant. By looking into the document Sl.No.9, 7, 6, 8, 29, 10 and letter dtd.21.02.2012 the respondent properly acted upon in settling the claim amount. For compliance to the letter of the respondent dtd.29.08.2012 the complainant did not produced any documents. By this it is evident that the complainant did not furnished the details sought by the respondent to do arrangement for settlement of the amount payable on the policy after deduction of loan amount and interest with proper calculation.

12.   Even at the time of argument the respondent counsel made his sincere submission to the Forum that even now the respondents are ready to do the payment provided, the complainant furnish and assist the respondent to make payment. Further the learned counsel for respondent also submits, if the complainant is not prepared to comply the requirements and if he wishes to decide the case before appropriate court of law other than this Forum the same may be referred to civil court as per the contention taken by the respondent in their written version stating, the matter involved is complicated one and requires voluminous trial, the same can be referred and the respondent has no objection.

13.   When these submissions are made by the respondent and also on taking into consideration of the evidence and documents relied by the respondent, the respondent has not committed any deficiency in service. Interalia the complainant himself has committed default on his part in non complying to the letter dtd.06.01.2012 and furnishing the details to the respondent to enable to settle the amount. Hence, complainant is not entitled for any compensation or cost of the proceedings. However, if the complainant wish to receive the amount payable towards his policy the complainant is directed to comply and furnish the document as sought by the respondent. In such an event the respondent shall pay the amount accordingly.

14.  In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2  accordingly.

15.   Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following 

Order

 The complaint of the complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs. This order do not comes in the way of the respondent to do payment as per the observations made in the event the complainants comply the requirements.

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 11^th day of April 2014)

(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi)                                  (Shri.B.H.Shreeharsha)

Member                                                  President

Dist.Consumer Forum                                 Dist.Consumer Forum

MSR