Orissa

Rayagada

CC/124/2016

Sri Dilip Kumar Panigarahi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Brach Manger, Lic of India - Opp.Party(s)

Self

17 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 124 / 2016.                                       Date.  17     .    7   . 2018.

P R E S E N T .                

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                      President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                          Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                                  Member

 

Sri  Dilip Kumar Panigrahi, Teacher,  Niladri Bihar, 2^nd. lane, Balaram   Nagar,   Dist: Rayagada, State:  Odisha.                                                                                                …….Complainant

Vrs.

1. The  Branch  Manager, Life Insurance Corporation  of India Ltd., Rayagada Branch, Rayagada(Odisha).
2. The Regional  Manager,LIC of India, Berhampur, Dist:Ganjam.
3. Sri Rajendra  Prasad Nayak, Agent, Brahmin street, Old Gunupur, Po:Gunupur,Dist:Rayagada.                                        …  Opposite Parties.

For the Complainant:- Self.

For the O.P No.1 & 2 :- Sri  Sahadev  Choudhury, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps 3 :- Set exparte.

JUDGEMENT

The  present disputes emerges out of the grievance raised in the  complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non payment  sum assured amount  in policy  No.573010661 on maturity.

On being noticed the O.P  No.  1 & 2  appeared through their learned counsel and filed joint  written version refuting allegation made against them.  The O.P No. 1 & 2    taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P  No 1 & 2.. Hence the O.P No. 1 & 2  prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

On being noticed  the O.P  No.3   neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  15 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No.3.  Observing lapses of around 2 years  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.P. No.e. The action of the O.P No.3  is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P. No.3  set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

 Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.P  No.3  and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                                    FINDINGS.

On perusal of the record it is revealed that there is no dispute the  complainant was issued with policy No.  573010661 for a sum assured Rs. 1,40,000/- under table and term 805-05 with premium paying term 5 years.  Further there is no dispute the yearly premium under the policy was Rs. 14,000/- per annum.  Again there is no dispute the policy  commenced on 23.2.2011 and the date of maturity was 23.2.2016.  After maturity of  the above  policy  the complainant was received  only Rs. 69,503/- out of sum assured  Rs.1,40,000/- from the  O.Ps No.1 & 2. So the complainant approached the  O.P. No.1 & 2  to get the balance amount. But the O.Ps paid deaf ear. Hence  this C.C. case.

 The O.P. No.1 & 2 in their written version para No. 3 contended that the name of the policy was Bima  account without  profit policy.  According to the terms and conditions  mentioned in the policy bond the complainant will get the balance amount held in the policy  holder’s account on the date of maturity; on the other hand in case of death of the policy  holder during  the term of the policy, when the policy is in force an amount equal  to the sum assured is payable.

The policy  holder  survived to the date of    maturity and accordingly  the balance amount held in the policy holder’s account, which comes to  Rs. 69,503/- was paid to the complainant through NEFT system of  payment, to his bank account on 20.3.2016. Had there been death  of the  policy holder before  the date of maturity 23.2.2016, an amount of Rs.;1,40,000/- would have been paid. Here the policy holder survived to the date of maturity but death doesn’t took place; so the balance held in the policy holder’s account is only  payable, which is paid as mentioned above.

 

                The O.P. No.1 & 2 in their written version para No. 4 contended that the   O.Ps has correctly settled the maturity claim under the afore mentioned  policy i.e. Rs.69,503/- and the balance amount of Rs.70,500/- claimed by the complainant is incorrect as per the facts  submitted by the O.Ps  in the para above.

          The O.P. No.1 & 2 in their written version para No. 5 contended that the   O.ps settled the maturity  claim as per the terms and  conditions of the policy and credited  the amount to the bank account of the complainant in time. There is no scope  for causing  any harassment mentally and financially.  Hence the allegation  of mental and financial  harassment made by the complainant  is totally false and baseless.

          This forum completely agreed with views taken  inter alia   documents filed by the O.Ps in  the present case. Hence  this forum  feel the complainant is not entitled for  any  relief sought for  from this forum and  shall   liable to be dismissed.

Thus,  it    becomes clear that even on merits, complainant is  not entitled to  any claim from the O.Ps.

          To  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.

ORDER.

In  resultant the complaint petition stands  dismissed. In the circumstances there is no order as to cost.    Accordingly the case  is disposed of.

Dictated and corrected by me               Pronounced on this        17  ^th.   Day of  July,  2018.

 

Member.                                             Member.                                                             President