BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Complaint Case No : 227 of 2010 Date of Institution : 12.04.2010 Date of Decision : 06.07.2011 (1) Smt. Krishna Anand w/o Sh. Surinder Mohan Anand. (2) Surinder Mohan Anand S/o Late Sh. K.L. Anand. (3) Neeraj Anand S/o Sh. Surinder Mohan Anand. All residents of H.No.14, Sector 15, Chandigarh (presently residing at H.No.50/3, Subhash Nagar, Manimajra, U.T. Chandigarh). ….…Complainants V E R S U S (1) Sh. Himanshu Bhushan Biswal, M.D.R.T., USA, LIC Agent, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jeewandeep Building, Unit-I, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh. (2) Sh. Vinod Kumar, LIC Agent, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jeewandeep Building, Unit-I, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh. 2nd Address: R/o H.No.2916/A, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh. (3) Life Insurance Corporation of India, through its General Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jeewandeep Building, Unit-I, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh. .…..Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL MEMBER MRS.MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER Argued by:Sh. K.K. Verma, Adv. for Complainant. Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for OP Nos.1 & 2. Sh. Vinod Verma, Adv. for OP No.3. PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER Adumbrated in brief, the facts indispensable for the disposal of the instant complaint, instituted u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, are that allured by the false assurances given by the OPs No. 1 & 2 about good returns on investing in the market plus policies, being floated by OP No.3, the Complainants got invested their hard earned amount of approx.23.00 lacs, which they got on their retirement. Not only that, they were also told to pay one time premium and after three years of the date of maturity, they would get higher maturity value. But the lame assurance turned to be otherwise, with the result, the aforesaid amount invested by Complainants from 2007 to 2008, had gone into wrong footing and they had suffered termination of policies and the benefits, which were to be accrued to them at the time of maturity, became redundant. It was also alleged that OPs No. 1 & 2, in order to reap undue benefit, created a fresh policy on each and every time, while collecting premium. Albeit, the Complainant served a legal notice dated 12.3.2010 upon the OPs No.1 & 2, demanding the losses suffered by them on account of wrong practice adopted by the OPs No. 1 & 2, but the same did not yield the desired results. Hence this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 2] Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case. 3] OPs No.1 & 2 in their joint written statement admitted the factual aspects of the case. The investment of Rs.23.00 lacs by the Complainants has not been disputed by the OPs. It was pleaded that the Complainants were very much aware about the terms & conditions and consequences of investment in Unit Linked Plans, as they had already invested and earned profits by investing in the Policy. It was denied that OPs No.1 & 2 ever approached the Complainants. It was asserted that the Complainants themselves decided to invest their amount in Market Plus for five yearly premiums. However, the premiums for the subsequent years were not paid by the Complainants and no alleged protest was ever raised by them and they remained tight-lipped in the free look period after receiving the policy. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint. 4] OP No.3 in its written statement, while admitted the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that if the agents exceed its authorized act from the principle employer, the employer cannot be held liable for acts performed by the agent. It was admitted that Rs.22.80 lacs was invested by the Complainants in various policies starting from the year 2007. The proposal forms were filled by the Complainants, accepting the terms & conditions of the policies. The mode of payment in all the policies was yearly, except one policy where the mode of payment was single premium. However, in many policies, the Complainants did not deposit the future premiums. Moreover, the legal notice was served upon OPs No.1 & 2 and OP No. 3 was not aware about the activities of the other party till the date of receiving the copy of the notice. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint. 5] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 6] We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 7. The main contention of the complainant in this complaint is that their hard earned money which they invested with OP NO.3, on the false assurances of OP No. 1 &2, to get the higher maturity value had gone into wrong footing as they have suffered termination of policies as well as the benefits which were to be accrued to them at the time of maturity become redundant. The receipts of premiums paid by complainant are collectively placed on record as Annexure C-1 to C-15. It came to the notice of the complainant, only when they received lesser dividends against the policies. The complainant submitted that the OP No.1 & 2, in order to get undue benefits of commissions have created fresh policies each and every time while collecting premiums. 8. On the other hand, the OP No. 1 &2 in their joint reply refuted the allegations made by the complainants, whereas they have not denied the factual matrix of investing Rs.23 lakh by complainants. They further elaborated that the complainants were very much aware about the terms and conditions and consequences of investments in Unit Link Plans as they have already invested as well as earned profits by investing in such policies which is every evident from Annexure R-3 Moreover, the complainants themselves decided to invest their amount in Market Plus for five yearly premiums and remained tight-lipped during free look period after receiving the policies. The complainant also switched their previous policy which was issued in 2005 and fresh policy was issued in 2006, after receiving amount from LIC and subsequently, premiums were not paid. 9. Similarly OP No. 3 has stated, that the proposal form (Annexure R-1) submitted to the LIC by the complainants, were filled and signed by them, that is only after accepting the terms and conditions of the policies, which was beyond doubt known to the policy holders. Hence, they were aware about the mode of payment for all the policies, which were yearly except one, where mode of payment was single premium. OP No.3 further stated and clarified about the lapse/termination of policies due to non-payment of premium amount by the complainants. 10. A thorough perusal of documents placed on file indicates that evidently, the policies issued to the complainants were having yearly premiums except one policy i.e. policy NO. 163620686, where the mode of payment is single premium. It has been clearly mentioned in proposal form duly signed by complainant (Annexure R-1) that the mode of payment of the policies was on yearly basis. A perusal of Annexure R-3 also reveals that the complainants have further availed profits against various types of policies. Thus, there is no relevance in the averments of the complainants, that they were issued fresh policies by the OPs while collecting premiums; which in our view is not possible because each and every policy can be issued only if the same is accepted and signed by the policy holder. Hence, there seems to be no ambiguity regarding issuance of fresh policies. However, if the complainants were not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policies they could have opted for free look period and get the same cancelled within 15 days. But they did not do so, which reveals that the complainants cleverly never complained about the policies until they were getting profits but when they started getting less dividends only then, they stopped paying premiums of the policies as a result of that, the same were terminated by the OPs, due to non-deposit of yearly premiums. Hence there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs. 11. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The complaint deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 12. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. | | | | 06.07.2011 | [Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | [P.D.Goel] | | Member | Member | President |
| MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | |