BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.245/2013

DATED ON THIS THE 11^th September 2015

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri Devakumar.M.C.

Member

1.     The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986, against the opposite party, seeking a direction to pay the balance amount of `50,000/- with interest and compensation for delay in payment and for other reliefs.
2.     The complainant alleged that, he has purchased unit linked insurance policy, from opposite party on 16.01.2006 and surrendered the policy on 27.04.2013.  On surrender, the opposite party issued a receipt stating a sum of `1,34,918.98 will be payable within 10 days.  But, the opposite party deposited only a sum of `84,757/- instead of `1,34,918.98.  As such, alleged the deficiency in service and filed the complaint, seeking reliefs.
3.     The opposite party admitted that the complainant has purchased the unit linked insurance policy by name “Unit Gain Plus” on 16.01.2006 and alleged that the complainant has failed to pay the premium amount in time, due to which the allocation of the units reduced.  Further, contended that due to technical error, it was informed that a sum `1,34,918.98 will be payable and on rectification, the surrender value was calculated to arrive at `84,757/-.  Accordingly, deposited a sum of `84,757/- to the account of the complainant.  Hence, submitted that there is no deficiency in service and pray for dismissal of the complaint.
4.     To prove the averments, both parties have filed affidavit along with documents.  Both parties filed written arguments.  On perusal of the documents, matter posted for orders.
5.     The following points arise for our consideration are as follows:-

1. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service by non-payment of the balance policy amount and that he is entitled to the relief sought?
2. What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- The complainant alleged that, he has taken unit linked insurance policy from opposite party and the policy was to begin from 16.01.2006 and during the subsistence of the policy, on 27.04.2013, the complainant surrendered it and a receipt was issued by opposite party stating a sum of `1,34,918.98 will be payable within next 10 days.  But on 28.05.2013, a sum of `84,757/- has been credited to complainant’s account instead of `1,34,918.98.  Hence, alleging the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party filed the complaint seeking a direction to pay the balance amount with interest and compensation and other reliefs.
8.    The opposite party admitted the purchase of unit linked insurance policy by name “unit gain plus” on 16.01.2006 by complainant.  Alleged that, the complainant has failed to pay the premium amount in time.  Due to which the said policy came to be lapsed and the units allocated has been reduced.  The opposite party admits that a complaint lodged on 06.04.2013 and the same was replied on 15.06.2013.  The opposite party contended that due to technical error, the surrender value was mentioned as `1,34,918.98 and while processing the same mistake was rectified and the surrender value has been calculated to `84,757/- and the same has been paid.  Hence, there is no deficiency and pray for dismissal of the complaint.
9.    The opposite party’s allegation of non-payment of premium amount in time, because of which the policy came to be lapsed and the units allocated were reduced and this fact was not considered at the time of generation of the surrender value amount was not a valid reason to deny the payment.  Further, the receipt issued on 27.04.2013, proves that a sum of `1,34,918.98 was to be paid to complainant.  Hence, the deposit of `84,757/- with an untenable reply dated 15.06.2013 is not justifiable.  As such, held that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
10. Point No.2:- In view of the above finding on Point No.1, we pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of `50,158/- along with interest at 18% p.a. to the complainant, from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. from 22.06.2013 within 30 days of this order.
3. The opposite party shall pay a sum of `3,000/- towards compensation and `1,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant, within 30 days of this order.  In default, the opposite party shall pay interest at 10% p.a. on the said total sum of `4,000/-.
4. In case of default to comply this order, the O.P. shall undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.

Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.