Orissa

Cuttak

CC/43/2018

Smt Anila Chawda - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sr Divisional Manager,LIC Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Self

16 May 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK

C.C No.43/2018

Smt. Anila Chawda,

W/O:Sri Kishore Kooverji Chawda,

Res. of At:Pilgrim Road,PO:College Square,

Dist:Cuttack-753003.                                                                        … Complainant.

 

Vrs.

 

1.         Sr. Divisional Manager,

                  Life Insurance Corporation of India,

                  Division Office ‘Jeevan Prakash’,

                   At:Nuapatna,PO:Buxibazar,

                   Dist:Cuttack-753001.

 

2.         Branch Manager,

                 Life Insurance Corporation of India,

                  C.A.B,’Jyoti Plaza’,

                  Near S.B.Womens College,Mission Road,

                  PO:Buxibazar,Dist:Cuttack.                                          … Opp. Parties.

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member

 

Date of filing:    11.04.2018

Date of Order:  16.05.2023

 

For the complainant :Mr. R.Pati,Adv. & Associates.

                For the O.Ps.1 & 2     :   Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

             Thecase of the complainant in short is that she had obtained two nos. of “Jeevan Sneha” Policies bearing No.583328193 and 583328194 on 28.6.2001 to the tune of Rs.50,000/- each from the O.Ps on payment of required premium amount.  As per the policy conditions, she was entitled to get 20% towards survival benefit of the sum insured at the end of 5 years, 20% towards survival benefit of the sum insured at the end of 10 years,20% towards survival benefit of the sum insured at the end of 15 years and 40% of the sum insured was to be payable after completion of 20 years alongwith some benefits.  It is further case of the complainant is that as per the policy conditions, she was entitled to receive the survival benefit amount of the policy at any time when it fell due alongwith 11% compound interest. So also as per the condition of the said policy, the complainant may exercise her option for reinvestment of the said survival benefit.  After lapse of five years, the O.Ps released a sum of Rs.10,000/- each in respect of the two policies as first survival benefit,  which were not accepted by the complainant as she had opted for reinvestment of her survival benefits.  .  The complainant also had refunded the cheque which was received by her towards the said benefit. Thereafter, the O.Ps re-invested the said sum and took return of the original policy bonds from the complainant for the purpose of making necessary correction in both the policies and after necessary corrections returned the corrected policies to the complainant  The O.Ps again committed same mistake when she was entitled to get  the second survival benefit, which was due in 10 years tenure of policy by releasing Rs.10,000/- on each policy towards the survival benefits.  So the complainant had objected and thereby the said amount was reinvested by the O.Ps.  As per the policy conditions, the third survival benefit was due in the year 2016 but the O.Ps after lapse of near about one year in the month of March,2017 committed the said mistake by releasing the survival benefits in favour of the complainant.  The complainant returned the said cheque obtained in both the policies to the O.Ps with an intimation to the O.Ps to reinvest that money but the O.Ps although in first two occasions had reinvested the survival benefit of the complainant but on the third occasion rejected the request of the complainant by observing that since there was no instruction in writing about the reinvestment before the due date, the claim of reinvestment of survival benefit of the complainant cannot be entertained.  It is further stated by the complainant that before maturity of the survival benefit, the O.Ps would have given option to her as per the policy condition for re-investment  but the O.Ps had not given such option and rejected her claim.  Hence, the complainant has filed the present case before this Commission with a prayer for direction to the O.Ps to reinvest her third survival benefit in both the policies and disburse the same at the time of the maturity of the policy.  The complainant has also claimed from the O.Ps a sum of  Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for unfair trade practice, deficiency of service, mental agony, financial loss etc.

2. The O.Ps have filed their written version jointly.  It is stated by them that as per the policy condition, the complainant can re-invest her survival benefit when it fell due but the complainant was required to give option for re-investment prior to one month of the due date of survival benefit, which would be paid at the time of maturity of the policy but the complainant had not exercised any option prior to due date of third survival benefit to reinvest the same for which the O.Ps had released the survival benefit on the due date.   Hence, it is prayed for dismissal of the complaint case.
3. In order to prove her case, the complainant has filed some documents as well as evidence on affidavit.  On the other hand, the O.Ps have also filed some documents in order to  support their stand.
4. This Commission vide its order dt.27.2.20 had dismissed the complaint case filed by the complainant. Being aggrieved by such order, the complainant had approached the Hon’ble State C.D.R.Commission, Cuttack by filing F.A No.58/2020  and the Hon’ble State C.D.R.Commission vide order dt.30.3.21 has remanded the case to this Commission for denovo hearing after giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence if any and pass a speaking order keeping in mind the observation as made therein.
5. Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.
1. 2.  
   3.  

Issue no.ii.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

It is an admitted fact that the O.Ps had issued two nos. of insurance policies, namely “Jeevan Sneha” on 28.6.21 bearing no.No.583328193 and No.583328194 in favour of the complainant.  The O.Ps have filed policy conditions of “Jeevan Sneha” policy.  As per the said policy conditions/Clause-E(1),(2) & (3), the O.Ps were required to give intimation to the complainant about the due date of  the survival benefit and to seek the option of the complainant whether she wants to invest the survival benefit or not?  The said policy condition also stipulates that in case the policy holder does not exercise any option for reinvestment of the survival benefit, then the said benefit would be settled in favour of the policy holder.  In the present case, the O.Ps did not follow the conditions of the “Jeevan Sneha” policy while disbursing the survival benefits to the complainant.  On the first occasion when the survival benefit was due in five years, the complainant objected to the payment of the said survival benefits to her as she was interested for re-investment of the said amount as per the conditions of the policy.  The O.Ps without any objection reinvested the said sum and accordingly corrected the policy.  The correction as made by the O.Ps in the policy is not disputed by them.  The O.Ps reinvested the 2^nd survival benefit on the request made by the complainant to that effect after due date, which is not disputed.  But the O.Ps did not reinvest the 3^rd survival benefit on the ground that the complainant had not requested for the same before the due date.  In all occasions before disbursing the survival benefits, the O.Ps had not sought option of the complainant.  Hence, the ground taken by the O.Ps for not reinvesting the money of the complainant is an afterthought, which is not expected from them.  The O.Ps could not produce any evidence to the effect that before due date of the survival benefit in all the occasions they had sought option from the complainant for reinvestment or not as per the policy conditions.As the O.Ps did not seek option,  the complainant could not give her option for reinvestment of survival benefit in all occasions.  AS the O.Ps did not intimate, so also did not seek any option of the complainant before due date of maturity in all the occasions while disbursing the survival benefits, the complainant is entitled to get the benefit accrued on the survival benefits from the date when it was due.  Hence, the O.Ps being at fault should have reinvested all the survival benefits of the complainant on her request made after due date, as like they had corrected the policy accordingly in the 1^st instance of disbursement and reinvestment of survival benefit.  The O.Ps have violated the policy conditions and did not reinvest 3^rd survival benefit of the complainant.  Hence this is a clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.

Issues No.i &iii.

The complainant had purchased two nos. of insurance policies from the O.Ps under plan “Jeevan Sneha” on 28.6.21 bearing no.No.583328193 and No.583328194.  Both the policies had matured on 28.6.2021.   During course of hearing, the O.Ps submitted payment particulars and stated that they had disbursed the maturity amount of Rs.94,734/- in respect of each policy in favour of the complainant on 18.1.2022.  It reveals from the said payment particulars that first and second survival benefit was reinvested by the O.Ps at a later date and not on the due date.  It is already held that the O.Ps have committed deficiency in service in not intimating and seeking option from the complainant before disbursement of the survival benefits.  So the O.Ps are liable to pay the complainant differential amount taking into account reinvestment date as due date of survival benefit.  The O.Ps have not reinvested the third survival benefit dues of the complainant which was accrued in the month of June,2016 amounting to Rs.10,000/- in each of the policies.  Hence, in both the policies the complainant is entitled to get Rs.10,000/- alongwith compound interest @ 11% as per the policy conditions from the month of June,2016 till the same is paid to the complainant.   

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is maintainable and she is definitely entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her.  Hence, it is so ordered;

                                  ORDER

The case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps.  The O.Psare thus directed to pay  the complainant  compound interest @ 11% on the third survival benefit amounting to Rs.10,000/-in each of the policies i.e. policy bearing No.583328193 and No.583328194 from the month of June,2016 till the same is paid.  The O.Ps are further  directed to  calculate afresh the reinvestment date of first and second survival benefit amount in both the policies as  the respective due date of those benefits and pay  the differential amount to the complainant.  The O.Ps are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for his mental agony and harassment together with a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of his litigation.  So also, the O.Ps are directed to provide the calculation sheet of maturity amount in all respect which accrued in respect of the two policies of the complainant.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 16^th day of May,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.             

                                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                     Member.

                                                                                        Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                   President