IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/180/2019
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
02.02.9 09.12.19 12.08.22
Complainant: Debabrata Dey
S/o – Nanigopal Dey,
Vill – Lalgola (Chagol-hat)
P.O. & P.S.- Lalgola
Dist-Murshidabad, PIN-742148
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Senior Branch Manager,
Life Ins. Corporation of India,
Jiaganj Fultala Branch,
P.O. & P.S. Jiaganj,
Dist- Murshidabad,
Pin-742123
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Arifu Jaman.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties :
.
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.
Sri. Subir Sinha Roy………………………………….Member.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri. Ajay Kumar Das, Presiding Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Debabrata Dey (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Senior Branch Manager, Life Ins. Corporation of India Jiaganj Fultala Branch (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The material facts giving rise to file the complaint are that:-
The Complainant is a customer of LICI having policy No. 427244067 which has been commenced from 28.03.2009 and matured on 28.03.2019 under direct supervision of the O.P.
But the OP circulated printed Leaflet with caption “LIC’s Jeevan Saral (Table No-165)’’ with six headed explanation why should anybody chooses the policy. Another capsized feature regarding age group is minimum 12 years maximum 60 years. In illustration column, it has been categorically illustrated showing benefit calculation table that maturity benefits for yearly premium Rs. 9,008/- (approx) will be 1,59,679/-.
The complainant being attracted with the O.P.’s widely circulated Leaflet and also been attracted with the assurance of the O.P.’s Marketing Officials and Agents complainant purchased the policy for a term of 10 years with yearly premium of Rs. 9,608/- and he regularly paid the premium of such policy for 10 years as per terms. On mathematical calculation it will reveal that complainant have paid Rs. 96,080/- in total against the said policy.
After the maturity of the said policy O.P. have sent the Discharge Voucher for Rs. 58,828/- as gross amount of claim in full and final satisfaction. From the said Voucher it will reveal that in Payments Column it is mentioned that Basic Amount Rs. 43,256/- Int. Bonus/LA Rs. 15,572/-, Gross amount Rs. 58,828/-, Net Amount payable Rs. 58,828/-. But from the policy certificate it will reveal that the complainant paid yearly premium of Rs. 9608/- for 10 years and the total amount paid by him during the continuance of premium period is Rs. 96,080/-.
Complainant carefully read the Policy Certificate under captioned “Condition and Privileges within referred to” wherein terms and conditions of policy has been enunciated. Nowhere in the policy certificate it is expressly mentioned that in case of a Policy Holder having age 57 years will not be entitled to receive back the money which he deposited during the tenure of the policy term or he is not entitled to receive any Bonus or LA.
If O.P. expressly mentioned the age breakings and their respective entitlement on maturity at the O.P.’s leaflet, complainant never purchased the said policy, proposed through widely published leaflet.
As per the printed leaflet circulated by the O.P. and as per their assurance Complainant have purchased the said policy but after maturity the O.P. sent a Discharge Voucher wherefrom it will reveal that complainant have invested Rs. 96,080/- in 10 equal yearly installments but the Discharge Voucher shows that the O.P. is ready to refund only Rs. 58,828/- in place of assured refund, Rs. 1,59,679/- (Approx), which the O.P. intimated at the time of commencement of Policy.
Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case before the District Commission praying for an order directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 1,59,679/- which is assured at the time of commencement of the policy and for directing the O.P. to pay of Rs. 50,000/- as mental agony.
It appears from the record vide order No. 4 dt. 04.02.20 that the OP had not turned up in spite of service of notice as per postal AD. Such being the position this Commission directed ex-parte hearing of this case.
Decision with Reasons:
The Complainant has filed evidence on affidavit.
On perusing the LICI Policy Certificate, we find the following:
- Policy No. is 427244067.
- Maturity Sum Assured (Rs.) 43,256/-.
- Death Benefit Sum Assured under Main Plain (Rs.) 2,00,000/-.
- Accident Benefit Sum Assured (Rs.) 2,00,000/-.
- Date of Commencement is 28.03.09.
- Date of Maturity is 28.03.19.
The LICI issued discharge voucher for maturity claim payment in connection with the LICI Policy Certificate. On perusing this document we find that the said document is in accordance with the LICI Policy Certificate which we find prima facie correct.
It is alleged by the Complainant that as per the printed leaflet circulated by the OP and as per their assurance he had purchased the said policy but after maturity the OP sent a discharge voucher wherefrom it is revealed that he had invested Rs.96,080/-in 10 equal yearly installments but the discharge voucher shows that the OP is ready to refund only Rs.58,828/- in place of assured refund, Rs.1,59,679/- and as such the Complainant prays with the prayer that the OP be directed to pay Rs.1,59,679/- which he assured at the time of commencement of the policy and to pay Rs.50,000/- as mental agony.
It would not be out of place to mention here that the LICI Policy Certificate was issued on 22.04.09. Such being the position, the Complainant could file the complaint within 2 years from 22.04.09 and then this Commission could have exercise jurisdiction to decide the allegation of leaflet.
But the instant case was filed on 02.12.19 which is beyond the limitation period of 2 years. Here the case is barred by the law of limitation and as such the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 02.12.19 and admitted on 09.12.19. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case is dismissed.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the instant complaint case No. CC/180/2019 be and same is dismissed ex-parte against the OP but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
