Order No. 31  dt.  05/04/2017

The case of the complainant is that the complainant had a LIC policy with the opposite party. The complainant invested in the said policy for 5 years.As the complainant became a mother, she had to incur huge expenses. Subsequently , with the purchase of a flat , the husband of the complainant became over burden with the payment of the E.M.I in respect of the said flat. The complainant had the idea that she would meet the expenses of her child she needed the amount. On numerous accessories the complainant and her husband requested the opposite parties to release the fund but no action was taken by the opposite parties. Being frustrated to have any correspondence from the opposite parties, the complainant sent a lawyer’s notice. The opposite parties  replied the said notice and informed that the amount was credited on 8^th September, 2011. On the basis of the said fact, the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the opposite parties for payment of the interest at the rate of 12% interest on the said amount. The complainant also claimed for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-and litigation cost.

The opposite parties contested the case, denied all the material allegations of the complainant. The complainant signed the proposal form on 23/06/2006 for a proposed premium amounting to Rs. 3000/- which was to be paid monthly. The complainant got the ‘Free Look Period’ for cancellation of the policy but she did not avail of that opportunity. Subsequently, the complainant sent an intimation to the opposite parties showing her intention to surrender the said policy. After receiving the said intimation, the opposite party no-1 took necessary steps and the amount was processed through N.E.F.T .The amount was credited in the account of the complainant. In view of the said fact, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the case.

On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties , the following points are to be determine;

1. Whether the complainant had the policy with the opposite party no-1.
2. Whether the complainant surrendered the policy and was there any delay in disbursing the amount.
3. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties .
4. Whether the complainant will be entitled  to get relief as prayed for.

Decisions with reason :

All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and for avoidance of repetition of facts. The ld advocate for the complainant argued that the complainant had one policy with the opposite party no-1.Because of financial stringency the complainant could not continue with the policy. With the giving birth to a child the complainant needed the money and surrendered the policy to the opposite party no-1.The complainant demanded the refund of the amount, paid by her but the opposite party no-1 delayed to disburse the amount in favour of the complainant which caused serious financial loss to the complainant.

In view of the said fact, the ld advocate for the complainant prayed for direction upon the opposite parties to pay the interest on the amount causing delay in depositing the amount deposited by the o.p. The complainant also prayed for compensation.

The ld advocate for o.ps argued that the complainant made wild allegation against the opposite parties. So far as the allegation of holding from opposite Party No-1is concerned if the complainant would have any grievances she could have cancel the policy by exercising her option with in ‘Free Look Period’ of 15 days but the complainant did not exercise such option. With regard to the delay in disbursing the amount is concerned, the opposite party no-1 had to verify the claim of the complainant and for such purpose some delay was committed which cannot be said to be the deficiency in service. Accordingly, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the case.

Considering the submissions of the respective parties, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had the policy with opposite party no-1. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant failed to continue with the said policy and she exercised her option to surrender the policy in order to meet the expenses for her new born baby. From the materials on record it is found that the complainant was not provided with the money by opposite party no-1.within the reasonable time and some delay was committed which the opposite parties admitted in their written version.

In view of such evidence on record, we hold that there was some delay which can be said to have caused mental agony to the complainant for which the complainant will be entitled to get compensation and also cost for filing of the case.

Since there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties , the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation.

Thus all points are disposed of accordingly.

                      Hence, it is ordered.

That the C.C No 210/12 is allowed on contest with cost.

The complainant will be entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 500/-. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay the said amount with in one month from the date of communication of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled to get interest at the rate of 10% per annum till the realization of the said amount.

Supply certified copy to the parties free of cost.