SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
Complainant filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking to get an order directing opposite party to pay Rs.33,347/- towards balance premium amount she deposited to opposite party together with Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and litigation cost.
According to the complainant, the complaint is that she took policy No.796809796 from the OP and paid full premium during 10 years and on maturity she got only Rs.20,509/-. It is further submitted that at the time of joining the policy the LIC agent told her that on attaining maturity she will get Rs.1,00,000/- as maturity claim. Complainant stated that she had paid Rs.53,856/- towards total premium for the 10 years. The complainant claimed at least the balance amount she had paid after deducting 20,509/- ie Rs.33,347/-. Hence the complaint.
OP opposed the complaint alleging that OP No.2 issued Jeevan Saral Policy Plan 165 bearing No.796809796 on the life of complainant with date of commencement is 21/10/2011. OP contended that in the policy issued to the complainant itself clearly shows that maturity sum assured as Rs.15,796/- with loyalty addition. Hence on maturity after 10 years she has given Rs.15,796/- with loyalty addition amount Rs.5,529/- It is submitted that since there is a balance premium of Rs.816/- to be paid by the complainant towards two premium installments. She has been given the balance amount Rs.20,509/- as sum assured. According to OP, the complainant is not entitled to get any balance amount. It is also stated that Ext.B3 shows that she had received the sum assured amount Rs.20,509/- sanctioned by OP, without any objection. No other amount is due from the OP. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost to the OPs.
Complainant has filed her chief affidavit and documents. Examined as Pw1. Documents were marked as Ext.A1 Letter issued by OP to complainant dated 13/02/2023 stating that OP has paid the entire eligible amount to her and there is no balance amount to be sanctioned. Pw1 was cross-examined by OP and marked Ext.B1 to B3 through complainant and also produced documents Ext.B4. Ext.B1 is proposed form, B2 is policy, Ext.B3 is discharge voucher and Ext.B4 is the calculation details.
After that the learned counsel of OP filed written argument note. We have perused the records and also submissions of parties. Here complainant’s allegation is that she took the policy from OP and paid full premium for 10 years but on maturity instead of getting Rs.1,00,000/-, she got only Rs.20,509/-. Complainant submitted that while taking policy, the agent assured her that on maturity she will get 1 lakh towards sum assured. She has stated that she had paid Rs.53,856/- as total premium amount. So her demand is to get balance of Rs.33,347/- ie after deducting Rs.20509/- from the total premium paid amount Rs.53,856/-.
On the other hand OP contended that in the policy issued to the complainant itself clearly shows that maturity sum assured as Rs.15,796/- with loyalty addition. Hence on maturity after 10 years she has given Rs.15,796/- with loyalty addition amount Rs.5,529/- It is submitted that since there is a balance premium of Rs.816/- to be paid by the complainant towards two premium installments. She has been given the balance amount Rs.20,509/- as sum assured. According to OP, the complainant is not entitled to get any balance amount. It is also stated that Ext.B3 shows that she had received the sum assured amount Rs.20,509/- sanctioned by OP, without any objection. OP contended that the complainant did not examine the Insurance agent to establish her allegation that the agent assured her that she will get Rs.1,00,0000/- as maturity amount. The learned counsel of OP submitted Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court of India “National Insurance Co. Ltd. k. V Chief electoral officer & ORS 2023(1) KCJ 721 in which Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Contract of Insurance must be given paramount importance and it is not open for the court to add, delete or substitute any words. Insurance contract are in the nature where exceptions cannot be made on ground of equity and the courts ought not to interfere with the terms of an insurance agreement. Insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy. The terms of the contract have to be construed strictly, without altering the nature of the contract. Insurance contract must be read as a whole and every attempt should be made or harmonies the terms there of.
On perusal of Ext.B2 policy, it is seen that the sum assured amount is clearly mentioned as Rs.15,796/*. Further Ext.B3 shows that the complainant (insured) received the amount of Rs.20,509/- towards full and final amount without raising any objection. During cross-examination, complainant admitted that there was two installment as due at the maturity time and receivable of Rs.20,509/-. The said amount has since been paid by the OP and has been accepted by the complainant, no other amount is due from the OP and therefore, the complainant was not entitled to the claimed amount.
In view of the above discussion, and also as per the settled position of law the complainant is not entitled to any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In the result the complaint fails and hence it is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Exts.
A1- Letter issued by OP dated 13/02/2023
Pw1- N Rohini –Complainant
B1-Proposal form
B2-Policy
B3-Discharge voucher
B4-Calculations details
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forwarded by order/
Assistant Registrar
