Haryana

StateCommission

A/28/2016

LIFE INSURANCE CORP.OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUNITA DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

NITESH SINGHI

23 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

                                      First Appeal No.28 of 2016

                                      Date of Institution:11.02.2016

                                      Date of Decision: 23.02.2017

 

The Manager, LIC of India, Branch Gohana, District Sonepat, Haryana, through Manager Legal, LIC of India, Regional Office, Chandigarh.

                                                …Appellant

Versus

 

Smt. Sunita Devi wife of Mahabir Singh, resident of VPO Purkhas Rathee, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat, Haryana.

                                                …Respondent

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

 

Present:     Mr. Nitesh Singhi, Advocate for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

 

                                       O R D E R

 

 

R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

     As per complainant she purchased policy No.175540017 dated 20.03.2007 under money plus table No.180. She  deposited Rs.10,000/- in the year, 2007 again Rs.10,000/- in the year, 2008 and lastly Rs.10,000/- in the year, 2009. As per instructions contained in policy she was entitled to withdraw Rs.57,479/-. After maturity of policy she approached opposite parties to pay aforesaid amount to her, but no heed was paid to her request. Even written notice was sent, but to no result.

2.  opposite parties filed reply, controverting her averments and alleged that policy was foreclosed on 20.03.2012 NAV rate on that day rate was Rs.11.5212. The units secured under this policy were 2437.045. As per terms and conditions Rs.28,078/- were payable to her. She was not entitled for Rs.57,479/- as alleged in the complaint. Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.  After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sonepat (for short ‘District Forum’) allowed the complaint and directed as under:-

          “…In our view, definitely the complainant is entitled to get Rs.57,479/- from the respondent. As per the respondent the total monetary value under the policy is Rs.28078/-. If the respondent has paid the amount of Rs.28078/- to the complainant, then after deducting the amount of Rs.28078/-, the respondent directed to pay the balance amount to the complainant. If the amount of Rs.28078/- has not been paid by the respondent to the complainant, in that event, it is directed to the respondent to pay Rs.57479/- to the complainant. It is also directed that whatever the amount is payable by the respondent to the complainant, the same be paid to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order, failing which the said payable amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of failing of the present complaint till its realization.”

4.                Feeling aggrieved therefrom OP has preferred this appeal.

5.                As nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent not only today, but on the previous three dates, so the appeal is being disposed of in her absence.

6.                Arguments  of learned counsel for appellant are heard. File perused.

7.                Learned District Forum has directed to pay Rs.57479/- on the basis of pamphlet Ex.C-5. It is nowhere proved that this pamphlet was  issued by the OP. If any such pamphlet is issued by 3^rd party it cannot be presumed that insurance company is bound by the same. When this fact is not proved, OP is liable to pay the amount as per terms and conditions mentioned in insurance policy, copy of which is Ex.R-1. As per NAV Annexure R-2 the value of the unit was 11.5212 as alleged by the OPs. Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration all these aspects and wrongly directed to pay Rs.57479/-. Any how complainant is held entitled for refund of amount deposited by her because she is simple villager and may not be aware about the terms and conditions. So the impugned order dated 08.10.2015 is modified to the extent that complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.  30,000/- from OP.

9.      Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.

February 23^rd,           Urvashi Agnihotri                 R.K. Bishnoi

2017                                       Member                                 Judicial Member

                                                Addl. Bench                          Addl. Bench

R.K