District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal
(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)
Telefax: (03522)-270013
Present
Shri Sambhunath Chatterjee - President
Miss. Swapna Saha - Member
Shri Siddhartha Ganguli - Member
Consumer Complaint No. 9/2015
Mampi Barman
D/o Bishnu Barman
Vill.: Dangi, PO: Khidirpur, PS: Balurghat
Mobile No.:7583921342
Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur …………………Complainant(s)
V-E-R-S-U-S
1. The Branch Manager,
Jeevan Madhur Plan Office, Balurghat Branch, 3 ½ No. More,
PO & PS : Balurghat, Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur
2. The Manager / Officer-in-Charge
Command Office, N.S. Road Bidhan Nagar More
PO & PS : Raiganj, Dist.: Uttar Dinajpur
3. The Micro Insurance Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Micro Insurance Deptt. Jalpaiguri Divisional, Jeevan Prakash Bhaban
Shantipara, PO, PS & Dist.: Jalpaiguri – 735101
4. The Divisional Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Micro Insurance Deptt. Jalpaiguri Divisional, Jeevan Prakash Bhaban
Shantipara, PO, PS & Dist.: Jalpaiguri – 735101
5. Senior Branch Manager, LIC of India, Balurghat Branch
PO & PS: Balurghat, Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur
6. Gouri Barman, W/o Ujjal Barman, Authorised Agent of LICI,
Agency Code: 83020R045/020280001/0001159
Vill: Dumur, PO: Kamarpara, PS: Balurghat,
Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur – 733126 …………Opposite Parties
For complainant …………… - Shri Shibotosh Chatterjee, Ld. Adv.
For OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3 …………… - None
For OP Nos. 4 & 5 …………… - Shri Dibakar Bhattacharya, Ld. Adv.
For OP No. 6 …………… - None
Date of Filing : 22.01.2015
Date of Disposal : 23.09.2015
Contd…P/2
Judgment & Order dt. 22.09.2015
The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased one policy of LIC’s Jeevan Madhur from Jeevan Madhur Plan Office of Balurghat Branch vide policy No. 455561483, sum assured Rs.6,000/- and the term of the policy was 5 years commencing from 14.5.2008 and the date of maturity of the said policy was 14.5.2013.
The above mentioned policy was sponsored by LIC of India, Jalpaiguri Division with their logo and address with full trust over the brand name of the LICI.
The complainant paid 54 premium @ Rs.100/- per month i.e. Rs.5,400/- in total as premium up to 17.10.2012 through her agent Gouri Barman to Jeevan Madhur office at Balurghat Branch. It was contended by the complainant that after the date of maturity the complainant submitted her maturity claim along with policy deed and other documents after observing all formalities in the branch office with the help of OP No.6 on 12.8.2013.
It is further contended by the complainant that the complainant did not get any maturity amount with or without benefit as per policy agreement and the complainant came to know that the office of OP No-1 remains closed due to some unknown reason. The complainant met personally with OP Nos. 5 & 6, but they declined to take any responsibility.
In view of the said fact the complainant files this case praying for maturity amount of Rs. 6,000/- i.e. the sum assured along with benefits as per policy and further prays for compensation for delay, mental pain agony and cost etc.
After registration of the case, notices were issued upon all the OPs. But despite receiving notices the OP Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 6 did not
Contd…P/3
appear before this Forum and the case has been proceeded ex-parte against them.
OP Nos. 4 & 5 appeared through their appointed Advocate and they submitted written version in connection with the case and they have also contested the case. The OP Nos. 4 & 5 filed written version jointly whereby they denied all the material allegations made by the complainant. It was stated that the concept of Micro Insurance is completely a new one and it is specifically mentioned in the said policy that policy can be surrendered at least 2 years’ premium have been paid and in Table 182 under clause 8 it is specifically mentioned that the policy can be surrendered at least after 2 years premium have been paid and in that case the surrendered value shall be 30% of the premium paid. The LIC of India being a financial organization under Public Sector Undertaking of Govt. of India have social commitment was directed by the Govt. of India and since the LIC of India for developing country’s growth as a whole and also for bringing the poorest of the poor section of toiling masses under the umbrella of insurance and with that motto to bring them to social mainstream the LIC of India adopted Micro Insurance Policy on the basis of the proposal made by the Hon’ble President and the said Micro Insurance policy is known as Jeevan Madhur.
Here in this case the agent specified by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority of India (IRDA) as per section 2(f) of IRDA Micro Insurance regulations has define as agents an (1) NGO, (2) Self Help Group (SHG) (3) MFI. Here the NGO the agent is the Uttar Dinajpur group for Human Resources Welfare (UDGHRD) having its head office at Bidhan Nagar More, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur and branch office in the district Dakshin Dinajpur with the address- Jeevan Madhur Plan Office, 3½ No. More, Balurghat.
Contd…P/4
The agent was entrusted to (a) collection of proposal forms, (b) collection of self-declaration from the proposer (c) collection and remittance of deposits and premium with the LIC of India.
It was also agreed with the Micro Insurance agent shall perform his duties in such a manner : -
- Any insurance premium collected by their specified persons on a policy of Micro Insurance on behalf of LIC of India shall be remitted to LIC of India.
- If it is not possible to send amount through a messenger the amount will be sent by Demand Draft.
- The soft copy of data entry is to be sent to LIC of India etc.
The Micro Insurance agent has deviated from duties and responsibilities, since the agent failed to comply to agree code of conduct by M.I. agent.
It was specifically stated by LIC of India that the complainant purchased one policy from UDGHRD and MI agent are authorized collector and received premium from the policyholder.
The premium acknowledgement book reflects the premium amount collected by the specified person and status of each policy as per MI module reflect. No. of premium deposited and adjusted against each policy. Accordingly, LIC of India denied for issuing of premium receipts annexed by the complainant.
It was contended by the LIC of India that according to non-forfeiture regulation of LIC of India M.I. policy if at least 2 full years i.e. 24 months premium is received and adjusted against any policy, the policyholder will be entitled to get benefit by way of maturity claim, death claim and surrendered value. The OPs informed the complainant that the policy was lapsed since the condition of deposit of money was not made in accordance with condition of the policy.
Contd…P/5
Since there were some irregularities committed by the NGO, UDGHRD etc. thereafter the LIC of India terminated their agency and the same was published in the newspapers.
In view of the facts and circumstances of stated above since the complainant failed to deposit the money as per condition of the policy, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any return of money or will not get any compensation from the OPs.
On the basis of pleadings of respective parties it is to be clarified here in this case regarding the points mentioned herein below:-
- Whether LIC of India issued the policy to the complainant?
- Whether LIC of India received any amount from the complainant towards premium or not?
- Whether any misdeed committed by the agent will confer any liability on LIC of India?
- Whether LIC of India is duty bound to return the money to the complainant?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service committed by the LIC of India in negating the claim of the complainant?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken together for avoidance of repetition of facts.
The complainant in order to substantiate the claim regarding her holding the policy and payment of money towards premium several documents have been filed before the Forum. Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that from the policy as well as receipts it can be found that logo of LIC of India was used everywhere which assured the complainant regarding the existing of the policy under control of LIC of India. LIC of India being a government undertaking has numerous policyholders and being the complainant coming from the poorest
Contd…P/6
section of the society invested her hard earned money towards the policy with the conviction that she would get back the amount and her policy would be under the control of LIC of India. Ld. Lawyer for the complainant emphasized that in spite of submitting the maturity claim along with the policy deed and related documents and after observing all formalities in the branch office with the OP No.6 on 12.8.2013, the OP Nos. 3 & 4 expressed their desire that they had no direct control regarding the said scheme for which the amount was invested by the complainant. Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that all the receipts filed by the complainant clearly speaks that the amount was received by the LIC of India and there was close relationship between OP Nos. 3, 4 & 5 with OP Nos. 1, 2 & 6, therefore, the LIC of India is responsible for paying the amount regarding the deposit made by the complainant.
Ld. Lawyer for the OP Nos. 4 & 5 argued that the LIC of India being the Govt. of India undertaking organization and in order to fulfill social commitment as envisaged by the Govt. of India, this Jeevan Madhur scheme was adopted by the Govt. of India and LIC of India was entrusted to monitor the scheme, but the agents were recruited as per the guideline prepared by the Insurance Regulatory Authority of India (IRDA) and as per 2(f) of IRDA (Micro Insurance) Regulations define as agents an (i) NGO (ii) SHG (iii) MFI. OP-6 being the agent and the amount was collected by the said agency and it was bounden duty of the said agent to deposit the money to the LIC of India. It was submitted by the Ld. Advocate for OP No.4 & 5 that 20 months’ premium was paid in respect of Policy No.455561483 to the LIC of India on behalf of the complainant. Since, the payment of 40 months was not made as such the policy was declared lapsed and the complainant’s claim could not be entertained by the LIC of India. In view of the facts and circumstances of the above the Ld. Lawyer for the OPs argued that the LIC of India cannot be held responsible for return of the money as well as payment of any compensation as claimed by the complainant.
Contd…P/7
Considering the submission of the respective parties it appears that the complainant in order to claim has filed some receipts wherefrom it appears that she paid premium in respect of said Jeeven Madhur plan. The complainant also filed some documents including receipts etc. wherefrom it appears that the logo of LICI was duly printed on those documents. It is also admitted fact that LICI monitored the said scheme, though the LICI has claimed that as per direction of Govt. of India the said scheme was opened in order to bring the people of weaker section of our society under the insurance scheme and for that purpose LICI was entrusted to monitor the said scheme.
So far as the argument advanced by the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant that the entire amount was paid by the complainant actually was paid to LICI is not correct since the amount was received by authorized agent and the agent was recruited after having consultation with LICI and LICI also took active part in running the said scheme.
From the documents filed by complainant it appears that the premium was received by OP 1 & 2 from the complainant i.e. 54 numbers of installments in respect of Policy No.455561483. Since the complainant did not pay for 40 installments for which LICI held that policy was lapsed but from the materials on record it appears that the complainant paid premium more than 2 years, if that fact is taken into consideration then it cannot be stated that the policy was lapsed. Since, it appears from the record that the LICI received premium for 20 months against the policy as mentioned above, which have been admitted by the OP Nos.3 & 4 and since the complainant is a lady belonging to a poorer section of our society and she paid hard earned money therefore, she cannot be denied to get back the amount paid by her by raising technical point that she failed to pay the premium for 24 months but receipts filed by the complainant shows that she continued her payment even after payment of 20 installments.
Contd…P/8
The complainant has claimed that she has deposited 54 installments in respect of the policy and the LICI has admitted that they have received 20 installments in respect of Policy No. 455561483. From the documents filed by the complainant it is found that the OP No.6 used to collect premium from the complainant and she deposited the same to the OP No.1 and OP No.1 used to issue money receipt. It is the business of the OP-1 to deposit all collected policy premiums to the OP–2 and the OP No.2 have to send all the collected premiums to the office of the LICI. Here OP Nos.1, 2 & 6 will be held responsible for non-depositing 34 numbers of installments in respect of Policy No.455561483 to the office of the LICI.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that complainant will be entitled to get the entire amount deposited by her i.e. Rs.5,400/- in respect of Policy No. 455561483 plus interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of submitting the claim from OPs. The OP Nos. 3, 4 & 5 are directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant which they have received and admitted in this case.
The balance amount i.e. Rs. 3,400/- along with 8% interest p.a. from the date of submitting the claim is to be paid by the OP Nos. 1, 2 & 6 severally and jointly. The OPs are hereby directed to pay the said entire amount to the complainant within 60 days from the date of order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till realization.
Hence it is,
O R D E R E D
that the instant petition of complaint is allowed on contest against the OP No. 4 & 5 and ex-parte against the OP Nos. 1,2, 3 & 6. The complainant will be entitled to get the amount deposited by her i.e. Rs.5,400/- in respect of Policy No. 455561483 plus interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of submitting the claim from OPs.
Contd…P/9
The OP Nos. 3, 4 & 5 are directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant plus interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of submitting the claim.
The OP Nos. 1, 2 & 6 are directed to pay severally and jointly the balance amount of Rs. 3,400/- along with 8% interest p.a. to the complainant from the date of submitting the claim.
The OPs are further directed to pay the said entire amount to the complainant within 60 days from the date of order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till realization.
No order as to cost is allowed. Parties to bear their respective costs.
Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.
Dictated & corrected
………Sd/-….…….
(S. Saha)
Member
We concur,
……Sd/-..…… ………Sd/-……..
(S. Ganguli) (Sambhunath Chatterjee)
Member President
- Date when free copy was issued ……………………
- Date of application for certified copy ……………………
- Date when copy was made ready ……………………
- Date of delivery ……………………
FREE COPY [Reg. 18(6)]
- Mode of dispatch ……………………
- Date of dispatch ……………………
-x-
