CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PALAKKAD, KERALA
Dated this the 15th day of May, 2012.
Present: Smt. Seena. H, President
: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi. A. K, Member Date of filing: 21/01/2012
CC / 20/ 2012
Sudhi.P.P,
S/o. Sankunni,
Kuttissery House, - Complainant
Veliyankode, Pazhanji P.O,
Malappuram.
(BY Party in Person)
Vs
Manager,
LIC of India,
Ottappalam Branch,
Ottappalam P.O, 679 101 - Opposite party
Palakkad.
(BY ADV. T.P. GEORGE)
O R D E R
BY SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT
Complaint in brief:-
Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- in growth fund, Market Plus Policy issued by opposite party through agent Vijayaraghavan. Agent has told that the amount can be withdrawn only after a period of 3 years. After 3 years on 29/11/2011 complainant approached opposite party for withdrawing the amount. Complainant was shocked to know that he will get only Rs.49,799/-. According to the complainant, as per the Malayala Manorama daily dt.27/10/11 & 29/10/11 the sensex was 17288.83, 1784.80 respectively. The grievance of the complainant is that after 4 years of deposit of the amount, he has not received any increase in the deposited amount. Hence the complaint. Complainant claims Rs.2 lakhs with 12% interest along with compensation & cost.
Opposite party filed version. Policy is admitted by the opposite party. The policy which the complainant joined is LIC's Market Plus Plan which is specifically stated in the proposal form itself. Policy is subject to market risk. Policy is issued subject to the terms and conditions and privileges printed on the policy documents itself. Further states that during the complainants policy period, due to global financial crisis and so many other economic factors the value of the units in the capital market did not grow much and also due to surrender of the policy long before the maturity date the complainant got only less amount. As per clause 20 of the policy document, risk is to be borne by the life assured. At any time during the policy term, the value of the policy holders unit account shall be the number of units in the account multiplied by the NAV of the units on that date. The NAV of units may increase or decrease depending upon the investment performance of the fund. The number of units in the account of the complainant multiplied by the NAV as on date was paid to the complainant. Opposite party has also adviced the complainant not to surrender the policy when the market is low. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
The evidence adduced by the parties consists of their respective chief affidavits. Ext.A1 &A2 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 to B6 marked on the side of opposite parties.
Issues for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party?
2. If so, What is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant?
Issues I & II
It is an admitted fact that the complainant has taken a market plus policy in the year 2007 and premium of Rs.50,000/- was paid and surrendered an amount of Rs.49,799/- in the year 2011. Complainant himself has stated in the complaint that he has deposited the amount in growth fund, market plus plan. Complainant has no case that the agent has misrepresented him regarding the terms and conditions of the policy. Complainant has merely stated that the agent has told that the amount cannot be withdrawn within 3 years of deposit. Ext.B1 proposal form is signed by the complainant. As per Ext.B2 the maturity date of the policy is 11/12/2018. Complainant has surrendered the amount in the year 2011 much prior to the maturity date. Complainant himself has stated that opposite party adviced not to withdraw at that time as the market was low. As per clause 10 of Ext.B2 policy, the surrender value payable will be fixed value of units held in the policy holders account at the date of surrender. As per Ext.B4 the number of units held by the complainant is 33674.61 units. The said units multiplied by the NAV as on the date of surrender cuts to Rs.49,499/-. Said amount was paid to the complainant as evident from Ext.B4.
We understand that the complainant has deposited the amount under high expectation and the complaint in the result of loss of that expectation. Market plus plan being an unit linked policy in subject to market variation. Insurance being a contract between the parties, they are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy. It is settled position that forum cannot go beyond the terms and conditions of the policy. We find that opposite party has paid whatever amount complainant is entitled to. Hence we are not in a position to attribute any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
In the result complaint dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of May, 2012
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/- Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1 – Letter dt.29/10/2011(Photocopy)
Ext. A2 – Surrender value dt.2/11/2011
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext. B1 – Proposal form for LIC's Market Plus Plan dt.11/12/2007 (Photocopy).
Ext. B2 - Market Plus Policy dt.11/12/2007 (Photocopy).
Ext. B3 – Letter for surrender of policy by the petitioner(Photocopy).
Ext. B4- Surrender value payment voucher(Photocopy).
Ext.B5 - Sensex report date.11/12/2007
Ext.B6 - Sensex report date.29/11/2011
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil.
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil.
Cost allowed
No cost allowed.
