BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
WEDNESDAY, the 16th day of June, 2016
FIRST APPPEAL No. 19/2015
M.Madivanane, S/o Manickasamy
No.49, Ponnambala Mudaliar St.,
Muthialpet, Puducherry ………… Appellant
Vs.
1. P. Narayanasamy, L.I.C. Agent,
Lifeline Investment Shopping,
No.315, Thiruvalluvar Salai,
Nellithope, Puducherry.
2. The Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
New Saram, Puducherry. ………….. Respondents
(On appeal against the order passed in C.C.No.48/2012, dt.03.08.2015 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry)
C.C.No.48/2012
M.Madivanane, S/o Manickasamy
No.49, Ponnambala Mudaliar St.,
Muthialpet, Puducherry ………… Complainant
Vs.
1. P. Narayanasamy, L.I.C. Agent,
Lifeline Investment Shopping,
No.315, Thiruvalluvar Salai,
Nellithope, Puducherry.
2. The Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
New Saram, Puducherry. ………….. Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN,
PRESIDENT
TMT. K.K.RITHA,
MEMBER
THIRU S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,
MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Party-in-person
FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
R1/O.P.No.1 - Party-in-person
Mr.S.P.Vasudevan,
Advocate, Puducherry – for R2/O.P.No.2
O R D E R
(By Hon'ble Justice President)
This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Puducherry, dated 03.08.2015 made in Consumer Complaint No.48/2012.
2. The complainant therein is the appellant herein and the opposite parties are respondents in this appeal. They are referred in the same nomenclature as they have been referred before the District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant before the District Forum, in nutshell, is stated hereunder.
The 1st opposite party approached the complainant when he was about ten years of his retirement and asked him to join the policy named Jeevan Anand assuring him that he will get more benefits in addition to his retirement benefits in the Government service. On his assurance, he has taken the policy. He has totally paid a sum of Rs. 1,45,200/- towards premium. After his retirement on 31.08.2012, the L.I.C. has paid only a sum of Rs. 1,36,100/- on the date of maturity of policy. A sum of Rs.9,100/- was lesser than the premium paid by him. He has cheated by O.P.No.1 by selling a policy designed only for the benefit of L.I.C. just like defective commodity and thereby the opposite parties caused mental torture and mental agony. Therefore, he has prayed a direction to the opposite parties to refund the amount paid by him viz. Rs. 1,40,869/- and also Rs.2.00 lacs for mental agony and harassment caused to him besides costs.
4. The 2nd opposite party has filed the reply version which has been adopted by the 1st opposite party, setting out the following facts.
The policy is for survival benefits and also for death benefits. Therefore, the 2nd opposite party collected a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- for survival benefits of Rs.1,00,000/- for alongwith bonus of Rs.36,100/-. The policy-holder, as per the said policy, will be paid Rs.1,00,000/- on survival. The 2nd O.P. has collected the amount as per the policy contract. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Thus, the reply version seeks for the dismissal of the complainant.
5. Before the District Forum, the complainant examined himself as CW1 and six documents have been filed and they have been marked as Exs.C1 to C6. On behalf of the opposite parties, none examined, but, three documents have been filed which are marked asExs.R1 to R3.
6. The District Forum had framed three points for consideration, namely, (1) Whether the complainant is a consumer? (2) Whether the opposite parties attributed Unfair Trade Practice and it leads to deficiency in service? and (3) To what relief, the complainant is entitled for?
7. In respect of point No.1 whether the complainant is a consumer, the District Forum found that the complainant is a consumer. As regards the 2nd point is concerned, the District Forum found that there is no unfair trade practice leading to deficiency in service. On point No.3, it is held that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed the complaint.
8. As already stated, the present appeal is laid against the said order.
9. We are of the view that the finding in respect of point No.1 whether the complainant is a consumer, the District Forum has rightly has taken the decision that the complainant is a consumer since the complainant has taken the policy from the L.I.C. and that paid monthly premium of Rs.1,210/- for 120 months. Therefore, we upheld the decision taken in this regard by the District Forum.
10. As regards point No.2, it has to be seen that the complainant has taken Jeevan Anand policy with the L.I.C. It is a specific case that he was forced to take the policy by the 1st opposite party by saying that he will get higher benefits. On the representation made by the 1st opposite party, he has taken the policy, but, however he has been paid less than what he has paid towards premium. According to him, he has paid Rs.1,42,200/- and he has got only a sum of Rs.1,36,100/- on the date of maturity of the policy, i.e. Rs. 9,100/- less.
11. Though he has stated that on the assurance given by the 1st opposite party that he will get more money on the date of maturity of policy, admittedly has not filed any document to substantiate the same. In fact, in his cross-examination he has stated as follows:
"I do not remember when the agent came and met me. I have no proof regarding the request of the agent for taking a policy him……. All the all the submissions made by me from para 2 to 5 in the proof-affidavit are all only oral by agent and I have no documentary proof regarding the same."
He has further added in his cross-examination that he did not go through the conditions mentioned in the policy.
12. The conditions mentioned in the policy are clearly set out in the policy if one does not read the conditions, he cannot blame the L.I.C. or its agent. May be the complainant would have thought that he will get more money if he takes the policy. However, we are of the view that if the complainant do not go through the terms and conditions of the policy, he cannot make a complaint that he thought that he will get more benefits by taking the policy and that he has been paid less on the date of maturity of the policy.
13. From Ex.C4, the certificate of insurance of Jeevan Anand, the payments have to be made and events of the happenings of which they are to be made: 1) On life assured surviving the premium paying term – sum assured together with accrued bonus, 2) On Life assurd's death before the end of the stipulated premium paying Term – Sum Assured together with accrued bonus and 3) On Life Assured's death after the end of the stipulated premium payment term - Sum assured. The complaint fits in Clause (1) referred to above. As per the said term, he should get the sum assured together with accrued bonus. He was paid by the L.I.C. the sum assured with accrued bonus, namely basic amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and vested bonus of Rs.32,500/-. The complainant, who has taken the policy on the basis of the conditions stipulated in the said policy, now cannot make a claim that he has been assured more by the 1st opposite party and he has taken the policy only on his assurance. As already stated in his cross-examination, the complainant has clearly stated that there is no proof for such assurance.
14. In view of the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the District Forum has rightly taken the decision to dismiss the complaint and we find no reasons to interfere with the decision taken by the District Forum.
15. In fine, the order of the District Forum, Puducherry, dated 03.08.2015 made in Consumer Complaint No.48/2012 is hereby confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs
Dated this the 16th day of March, 2016
(Justice. K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(K.K.RITHA)
MEMBER
(S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
