Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/577/2010

Janak Raj s/o Sh.Dass Ram, - Complainant(s)

Versus

SK Malhotra - Opp.Party(s)

Pardeep Garg

13 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                                Complaint No. 577  of 2010.

                                                                                                Date of institution: 14.06.2010

                                                                                                Date of decision: 13.01.2017.

1. Janak Raj son of Shri Dass Ram
2. Smt. Sumitra Devi wife of Shri Janak Raj, Residents of House No. 304, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   …Complainants.

                                    Versus

1. S.K. Malhotra- L.I.C. Agent since deceased now represented by Mrs. Chandna Malhotra widow of Shri S.K. Malhotra, Resident of House No. 298, Behind Gurdwara, Roop Nagar Colony, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India, having its Branch Office S.C.O. 184-185, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.  
3. Life Insurance Corporation of India, having its Divisional Office Karnal through its Managing Director. 

                                                                                                                                  …Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Pardeep Garg, Advocate counsel for complainant. 

              Respondent No.1 given up vide order dated 25.02.2015.

              Sh. Sushil Garg, Advocate, counsel for respondents No.2 & 3.  

 

ORDER

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged in the complaint, are that the respondent No.1 (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OP No.1) who is agent of OPs No.2 & 3 came at the house of complainants and represented that he is an authorized agent of Ops No.2 & 3 and there was a very good Policy of LIC in the name of Jeevan Sathi (Double Cover Scheme). Under the aforementioned policy, it was assured by the OP No.1 that both the complainants will get a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- i.e. one lac each as sum assured and besides this they will get accidental benefits of Rs. 1,00,000/- each. Believing the assertion of the OP No.1, the complainants continued to pay an amount of Rs. 11,978/- as installments per year in good faith and they received the policy bearing No. 173877459 for 15 years. The OP No.1 came to the house of complainants on the same day when the complainants received the policy from the LIC and requested them that the aforesaid policy was required to him to do certain official work and believing the assertions of the Op No.1, the policy was handed over to the OP No.1 but he did not return the same on the pretext that the same has been misplaced by him. About two months back, the complainant received the policy from Op No.1 and thereafter about one month back, the complainant No.1 has read the aforesaid policy from where it transpired that sum assured has been mentioned in the policy as Rs. 1,00,000/- instead of Rs. 2,00,000/- as represented by Op No.1.  The complainants have asked to OP No.1 that there was no occasion for the complainants to get such a policy wherein they have to pay a sum of Rs. 1,81,000/- in 15 years and in return they will get a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- only as sum assured and thereafter the OP No.1 felt sorry about his conduct. The act of OP No.1 is a clear cut deficiency and amounts to unfair trade practice and the OPs No.2 & 3 are bound by the illegal activities of their agent. The complainants had already paid a sum of Rs. 71,868/- upto September,2009 in installments to the OPs Insurance Company under the belief that the maturity amount is Rs. 2,00,000/- and this fraud has came to the notice of complainants only about one month back and the complainants approached the OPs No.2 & 3 either to return the amount already paid by the complainants alongwith interest or to correct the sum assured by Op No.1 in policy certificate but the OPs were not ready to do so. Keeping in view the above facts, the OPs may kindly be directed to refund a sum of Rs. 71,868/- already deposited by the complainants alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum or to correct the amount assured in the policy and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.2 & 3 appeared and filed its written statement jointly whereas OP No.1 has already been given up vide order dated 25.02.2015.

4.                     OPs No.2 & 3 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.2 & 3; complainants have no locus standi to file the present complaint; the complainants have concealed the material and true facts and did not approach this Forum with clean hands and on merit it has been submitted that the complainants might have as per their own choice obtained the insurance policy in question as the policy in question is a this policy containing income tax rebate, life risk cover of both the complainants. It has been admitted that the premium of the abovesaid policy was to the tune of Rs. 11,978/- per annum and at the time of maturity, the life assured shall get the sum assured besides bonus etc. as per terms of the policy. However, it has been denied that under the abovesaid policy, complainants shall get Rs. 2,00,000/- ( Two lacs) i.e. Rs. 1 lac each as sum assured. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint as there was no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs.

5                      In support of case, counsel for the complainants tendered into evidence affidavit of Janak Raj complainant as Annexure CA and photo copies of documents such as photo copy of forwarding letter of insurance policy as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of insurance policy as Annexure C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainants.

6                      On the other hand, counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Balihar Singh, Manager Legal as Annexure RW2/A and photo copies of documents such as Photo copy of insurance policy as Annexure R2/1, Copy of forwarding letter of Insurance Policy as Annexure R2/2, Copy of Proposal for insurance of Janak Raj as Annexure R2/3, Proposal for insurance of Smt. Sumitra Devi as Annexure R2/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.2 & 3.

7.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

8.                     It is not disputed that the complainants purchased Jeevan Sathi Insurance Policy bearing No. 173877459 for a sum insured of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the table 89-15 from the Ops No.2 & 3 Insurance Company i.e. LIC of India on 09.09.2004 valid up to 09.09.2019 with the installments of Rs. 11978/- per year for 15 years which is duly evident from the photo copy of insurance policy Annexure C-2. It is also not disputed that the complainants paid six (6) installments regularly up to 09.09.2009 and paid total amount of Rs. 71868/- as this fact has been admitted by the Ops No.2 & 3 in para No.3 of affidavit Annexure RW2/A. It is also not disputed that complainant has not paid the installments and the policy in question was in lapsed mode.

9.                     The only grievances of the complainants is that when they read over the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in the year 2009 i.e one month prior to file this complaint, then they came to know that the sum insured under the policy in question was only Rs. 1,00,000/- and complainant will get the same on its maturity whereas they have to pay Rs. 1,81,000/- in 15 years. In this way a fraud has been committed by the agent in collusion with the Ops No.2 & 3 Insurance Company. Upon which, the complainant visited the office of the Ops No.2 & 3 so many times but the official f the Ops No.2 & 3 refused to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 71,868/- despite so many requests.

10.                   Whereas on the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 Insurance Company argued at length that the complainants have leveled false allegations that agent of the Ops Insurance Company took back the insurance policy in question in the year 2004 from the complainants and only returned in the year 2009 whereas no truth is attached to these allegations. In fact, the Ops No.2 & 3 Insurance Company sent the insurance Policy to the complainant in the year 2004 and this fact has been admitted by the complainants themselves in para No.3 of the complaint. Further learned counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 argued that this fact also proves falsify from the facts that as the complainants were paying installments regularly up to September 2009, so, it cannot be said that complainants were not having any knowledge in respect of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Learned counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 further argued that the version of the complainants that they visited the office of the Ops and asked to refund the surrender value of the policy in question is also not correct as no such cogent evidence/documentary evidence has been placed on file to prove that they ever handed over any letter or request to refund the surrender value of the policy in question in the year 2009. Even no such date has been disclosed in the complaint on which they applied to the Ops No.2 & 3 Insurance Company to refund the surrender value of the policy in question. Learned counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 argued that no doubt complainants can surrender the policy in question after a lock in period of 3 years at any time and the Ops No.2 & 3 insurance company is bound to pay the surrender value as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy specifically mentioned in under clause 4 which is reproduced here as under:

“Non-forfeiture Regulations; If, after atleast three (3) full years’ premiums have been paid in respect of this policy, any subsequent premium be not duly paid, this policy shall not be wholly void, but the sum assured it shall be reduced to such a sum as shall bear the same ratio to the full sum assured as the number of premium actually paid shall bear to the total number originally stipulated for, in the policy, provided such reduced sum be not less than Rs. 250/- . The policy so reduced shall thereafter be free from all liability for payment of the within mentioned premium, but shall not be entitled to participate in future profits, from the date of discontinuance of premiums. The existing vested bonus additions, if any, will remain attached to the reduced paid up policy.”

                        Learned counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 lastly argued that as the complainants have neither surrendered the insurance policy in question nor made any request for the same. Hence, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops No.2 & 3 and requested for dismissal of the complaint.

11.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops No.2 & 3 Insurance Company as the complainants have totally failed to convince this forum that on what account the Ops Insurance Company has played fraud with them as it is the admitted case of the complainant that they received the insurance policy in question in the year 2004 when they purchased the same from the Ops Insurance Company. The complainants have not placed on file any document from which this Forum can consider that the Op No.1 i.e. agent in fact took back the insurance policy in question from the complainants in the year 2004 and the complainants could not read the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Every insurance policy bears a free look period of 15 days to return the policy in case of any disagree with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy but in the present complaint neither the complainants returned the insurance policy in question to the Ops No.2 &3 insurance company within a period of 15 days nor had surrendered the policy in question till filing of the complaint. Complainants have themselves placed on file forwarding letter alongwith the terms and conditions of the insurance policy Annexure C-1 in which free look period of 15 days has been provided to return the policy to the Ops Insurance Company. It is settled law of the Hon’ble National Commission as well as State Commission that insurance policy is a contract between the parties and both the parties are bound by its terms and conditions.

12.                   The complainants have neither surrendered the policy in question nor paid the installments regularly as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question. The complainants have also failed to place on file any documentary evidence i.e. request letter vide which they ever requested to the Ops No.2 & 3 Insurance Company to refund the surrendered value of the policy in question. Meaning thereby that, the complainants have directly approached this Forum without applying to the Ops Insurance Company. The complainants have filed only insurance policy alongwith forwarding letter Annexure C-1 in support of their case except this one nothing has been placed on file in support of their version.

13.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the complainants have miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops No.2 & 3 Insurance Company, hence, there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainants are at liberty to proceed with the Ops Insurance Company as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the Ops Insurance Company is also directed to proceed with the insurance policy as per terms and conditions. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 13.01.2017.

 

                                    (S.C.SHARMA)                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                    MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

                                                                                       D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNANAGAR.