1. The brief facts of the cases of the complainants are that they have obtained different policies in their individual names from the OP.1 and deposited premiums for a certain period. The details of policies under different scheme of the OPs and other details of the policies are mentioned at a glance below to have an easy look.
16/14 Smt. J. Mohanty 571805030/ 29.3.2008 28.10.13 1.00 lac Rs.1, 16,357/-
2. The complainants submitted that the agent of OP.1 assured that the schemes of OP.1 are profitable comparing with banks fixed deposit interest and also assured a high return after completion of 3 years and they obtained the policies posing faith on them but they could know after 3 years that their deposits are decreasing. It is further submitted that when they made allegations on the decreasing value of their deposits, the OP.1 closed their policies and transferred the surrender value to their respective bank accounts which are very much less. Now the complainants demanding bank fixed deposit interest on their deposits, have filed these cases praying the Forum to direct the Ops to pay the differential amount with interest @ 18% p.a. along with compensation for mental agony besides costs to the complainants.
3. The Ops filed counter denying the allegations of the complainants but admitted regarding above policies issued to the complainants and the facts mentioned in the table at para-1 above. It is contended that the policy bonds were issued with the condition that if the policy will be surrendered before expiry of policy terms, the surrender value will be paid as per prevailing rate i.e. Net Asset Value as on the date of surrender. It is also contended that the LIC of India has no power to terminate any policy during its validity and in the present cases, the complainants have surrendered their policies voluntarily and hence surrender value was paid to them for which the Ops have committed no deficiency in service. It is also further contended that the policies of the complainants are unit linked policies with terms and conditions and the life risk is also covered and hence the complainant cannot compare the policies with that of fixed deposits in the bank. With these contentions the Ops denying any fault on their part, prayed to dismiss the case of the complainants.
4. Both the parties have filed certain documents in these cases. The complainants only filed affidavit in support of their cases. Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.
5. In the above case, the policies obtained by the complainant, DOC, date of surrender, amount deposited and surrender value receipt by the complainants are all admitted facts. The complainants stated that the Ops through their agent made them convinced that the schemes of LIC are profitable comparing to the banks fixed deposit interest and also assured to get double the deposits after 3 years of the policies and hence they obtained the policies. The Ops denied any assurance given to the complainants either by them or through their agent and stated that the Ops after receipt of proposals and declarations and the first premium from the proposers, have issued the policies. The Ops stated that after receipt of surrender applications from the complainants, they have closed the policies and paid the surrender value to the complainants in case of single and regular premium contract.
6. We have carefully gone through the records and found that the complainants have requested the Op-1 for surrender of their respective policies through proper applications. Hence the allegations of the complainants that the Ops acted arbitrarily and compelled the complainants to surrender the policies have no meaning because before signing surrender application, the complainants might have gone through the contents of it and on being satisfied, they might have signed the applications. Further the complainants admitted in their complaints that they could know that after completion of 3 years, their deposits are not growing and even lower than the deposits. Hence this fact might be a reason compelling the complainants to surrender the policies.
7. The complainants further stated that they received fewer amounts than that of their deposits. It is clearly mentioned in the policy document that the policies in question are unit gain life insurance policies and in the event of death of the life assured or in case of surrender of the policy before the date of vesting, the fund value shall be payable only after completion of 3 years of the 3rd policy anniversary both under single and regular premium contract. The surrender value will be policyholders fund value at the date of surrender in case of unit gain policies. Clause-10 of terms and conditions of the policies in question says that if the life assured applies for surrender, then the policyholders fund value shall be converted into monetary terms at the NAV of that date.
8. In these cases, the complainants have requested the Ops for surrender of their policies and the Ops considering the surrender requests of the complainants have duly transferred the surrender value to their respective bank accounts as per rule. As such the financial problems or fewer amounts received by the complainants are nothing to do with the Ops as they have acted as per terms of the policies. Further it is seen that the policies cover the risks of life of the complainants during subsistence and the deposits of the complainants also invested by purchasing units. Hence the said investment cannot be compared with the banks fixed deposits.
9. In view of aforesaid discussions, we hold that the allegations made by the complainants were totally unjustified and which need no consideration. In the result, we dismiss the cases of the complainants having no merit. No orders as to costs.
(to dict.)
