Delhi

New Delhi

CC/44/2009

Mangat Rai Singhal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Life Insurance Corporation of India - Opp.Party(s)

27 Nov 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/44/09                                                                                                                                                                                  Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Mangat Rai Singhal,

S/o late Sh. Banarsi Das,

R/o A-355, 2^nd Floor, Meera Bagh,

Delhi-110087

 

 

……..COMPLAINANT

      

VERSUS

 

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Through its Managers,

Jeevan Bharti Building,

11^th floor, 124 Connaught Circus,

New Delhi-110001

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

              

The complainant had money back with profit policy no.260035773, which started on 28.02.87 with date of maturity on 28.02.07. However, due to nonpayment regularly went in default and OP after maturity date informed complainant by letter dated 08.12.06, indicating total benefit of Rs.16,675/- and complainant sent the required documents for release of this money. However, it is alleged that OP sent a sum of Rs.7,925/- only, without explaining the short fall, and this is alleged as deficiency leading to this complaint, for compensation.

The OP in its reply has not replied to allegations of the policy commencing from 28.02.07, but has stated facts of some other policy bearing no.131087235. This appears to have been done by callousness, negligence of its office. Such a reply is not relevant to allegations of complainant. However, the complainant with his complaint has annexed a letter of LIC dated 01.09.08 in reply to his legal notice dated 12.8.08. In this it is explained that, there was no vested amount or maturity amount for first 10 years of premium and by the mechanical mistake of computer the vested value of Rs.7,925/- was shown, which mistake was regretted. The premium up to 02.91 was only paid, and thereafter stopped, as is also stated in the complaint.

In the light of these facts, no deficiency is contended by OP. We agree with the OP that it was a computer mistake, which was regretted before filing of case. However, we are unable to appreciate the defending of case for so long by relying on facts of other policy and made complainant to suffer litigation. In view of this, we award a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for forcing a litigation by complainant, rather than defending it on correct facts.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 27.11.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER