1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he being allured by the massive advertisement through the Agent of the Ops and handouts, illustrations, the complainant proposed for a policy namely “Bima Accounts-I” on 28.2.2011 which is a guaranteed short term conventional plan. It is submitted that the policy is a short term saving for a period of 5 years and the complainant deposited Rs.2500/- at the time of proposal on 28.2.2011 being the quarterly premium and the Ops also issued policy bearing No.573279570 in favour of the complainant. It is further submitted that the policy bears 6% interest p.a. on deposits besides additional interest but on maturity, the Ops have paid Rs.49, 400/- to the complainant on the deposit of Rs.50, 000/- and as such the Ops have not paid the assured interest. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to pay the assured interest on the deposits or the differential amount with interest @ 18% p.a. on such differential amount from the date of maturity and to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.
2. The Ops filed counter in joint admitting the Policy No.573279570 under LIC’s Bima Account-1 for Sum Assured Rs.50, 000/- for 5 years with quarterly premium of Rs.2500/- issued by them in favour of the complainant w.e.f. 28.2.2011 and the claim was settled on 10.3.2016 at Rs.49, 400/- towards maturity. It is contended that as per Condition No.4(A) and 4 (B), the premium paid by the LA, after applying the expenses charges, the balance premium shall be credited to the policy holder’s account and guaranteed interest rate shall be applicable on the policy holder’s account but not on the gross premium paid by the policy holder. It is further contended that on the date of maturity, the premium balance was Rs.42, 572.68 and the interest on the premium balance was Rs.6, 827.74 and hence the maturity value of Rs.49, 400/- was paid to the complainant on 10.3.2016. Thus denying all other allegations of the complainant and pleading no fault on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases. Heard from the complainant as well as A/R for the Ops and perused the materials available on record.
4. In this case the insurance policy under Bima Account-I bearing No.573279570 issued by the Ops in favour of the complainant is an admitted fact. It is seen that the policy obtained by the complainant is for 5 years w.e.f. 28.2.2011 and the same was matured on 28.2.2016 and the complainant has deposited Rs.2500/- on quarterly mode till 2/2016 totaling Rs.50, 000/-. According to the complainant, the OP.2 floated massive advertisements and distributed handouts and illustrations regarding the benefits under the policy stating that the policyholder’s account earns guaranteed annual interest of 6% besides provision of additional interest but at the time of maturity, the Ops failed to keep their promises and paid Rs.49, 400/- to the complainant on the deposit of Rs.50, 000/-. The complainant has filed Claim/Surrender history record from which it is ascertained that the Ops have paid Rs.49, 400/- on maturity to the Bank accounts of the complainant on 11.3.2016.
5. The Ops stated that as per policy conditions, some percentage of the amount from out of the premia has been deducted and appropriated exclusively for the purpose of charges etc. and the balance amount has been credited to the accounts of the policy holder. Accordingly the Ops have deducted 27.5% from the 1st year deposits, 7.5% from the 2nd & 3rd year deposits and thereafter 5% from the deposits of the complainant. Besides the above, the Ops have also deducted mortality charges and Service Tax as per clause 4 (A) & (B) of the policy bond. Thus they have calculated the premium balance as Rs.42, 572.68 on which they have given 6% interest i.e. Rs.6827.74 which comes to Rs.49, 400/- on maturity.
6. It is seen from the record that prior to proposal the Ops have issued some printed advertisements for the public in English & Odia language duly signed by their Sr. D. M. (OP.2) which do not reflect any symptom that the policy bears deduction of some charges. There does not reflect a single word regarding clause 4 (A) & (B) of the policy bond in the said leaflets and handouts signed by OP.2. It has been clearly mentioned in the said papers that policy holders accounts earns only interest of 6% besides additional interest to be declared by the LIC on regular premium accounts for in force policies. It may be mentioned here that the complainant’s policy is a regular premium accounts. Had the Ops mentioned about the deductions to be made out of the deposits through their advertisements, the matter would have been different because the very advertisement came well before the proposal and issue of policy bond. In this case, the complainant has seen the advertisements first and being allured with the offer, the complainant has made the proposal and thereafter the Ops placed their terms and conditions through policy bond before the complainant.
7. The copy of advertisements filed in this case is deemed to be a statement issued to the public by the Ops and the Ops are to act accordingly but they did not do so. Materially those advertisements mislead the public. The Ops in this case, gave false and misleading facts expressing benefits attached to the policy offered for sale to the public. Further the Ops expressed, made and contained the statement through handouts, leaflets in this case and sold their policies through agents. Whatsoever made available to a member of public through advertisement must be strictly adhered to and carried out at the time of maturity. Therefore, it was ascertained that the advertisements issued by the Ops is altogether different than that of their conditions of the policy and by alluring the public through misleading advertisements, they have mis-sold the policy. As such it is concluded that the Ops have issued misleading advertisement and thereby adopted the method of rack and ruin towards their customers which in our opinion amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops. If a depositor does not get at least the amount deposited by him/her on maturity, they what is the use of taking such a policy?
8. The complainant in this case has prayed for assured interest on the amount paid to the Ops with additional interest with 18% interest besides a compensation of Rs.50, 000/-. In the above circumstances, we are not inclined to recalculate the interest and differential amount under the policy as prayed for but we feel that the complainant must have suffered some mental agony for such unfairness activities of the Ops for which he is entitled for some compensation besides cost of this litigation. Considering the sufferings of the complainant we feel a sum of Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation and costs in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.
9. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops being jointly and severally liable are directed to pay Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
(to dict.)
