Orissa

Rayagada

CC/380/2016

Sri K. Surana - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, LIC of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sri P.N. Dash

09 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 380 / 2016.                                           Date.  9       .     8  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri  GadadharaSahu,                                             Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri K.Surana,  S/O: Late  K.Ramudu,  Ambaguda, JSCO,  Po/  Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha).                                                                                            …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Branch Manager, LIC of India,  Rayagada.

2. The Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Berhampur Division,Berhampur(Ganjam).

3. Sri  Pradeep Kumar Dash, LIC agent,  C/O: B.M., LIC of India, Rayagada Branch, Rayagada.                                                                                                                   .…..Opposite  Parties.

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri P.N.Dash, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps No.1 & 2 :- Sri K.Ch.G.S.Kumandan, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P.No.3 :- In person.

JUDGEMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non payment of surrender value in policy No.573001879 Jeevan Akshay-VI   for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

On being noticed  the learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 & 2  filed written version inter alia  challenged  the maintainability of the  petition before the forum. The averments made in the  petition are  all false, and O.Ps  deny   each and every allegation made in the petition. The O.Ps 1 & 2  taking one  & other grounds in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986.  The O.Ps   prays the forum to dismiss the complaint petition  for the best interest of justice.

The O.P. No.3 filed written  version. In the written version the O.P.No.3 submitted that  he is an agent under the O.P. No.1 & O.P.  No.2. The complainant had choosen  LIC  Jivan Akshya-VI policy  and will be    received an  amount a sum of Rs.1,335/- per month as pension  w.e.f. October, 2010 till his death and had  deposited one time premium Rs.2,00,000/- on Dt. 14.09.2010 in LIC office inter alia  the  O.P. No.1 & 2 had issued  policy  No.573001879 in favour of the complainant. The O.P. No.3 clearly narrate  the conditions and details  terms and conditions of LIC Jeevan Akshya-VI policy to the complainant. The policy under Jeevan Akhya-VI policy clearly  speaks in surrender column the policy shall not acquire any surrender value, it is clearly explained  to the complainant  at the time of opening of insurance policy. The O.P. No.3 is not liable to pay any claim  or damage as claimed by the complainant and there is no cause of action against the O.P. No.3. The O.P.No.3 prays the forum to dismiss the  complaint petition against  the O.P.No.3 for the best interest of  justice.

 

The O.Ps appeared and defend the case.  Heard arguments from the  learned counsel for  the  O.Ps 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.

From the records it reveals that, there is no dispute that the  O.P. No.1 & 2 had issued  insurance policy LIC’s  Jivan Akshya-VI  bearing policy No. 573001879 in favour of the complainant(copies of the policy bond is in the file marked as Annexure-I). In the above policy the complainant will be  received a sum of Rs.1335/- per month as pension since November, 2010 till his death. Accordingly the complainant has received the same (copies of the bank pass book is in the file which is marked as Annexure-2). There is no dispute the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on Dt.  14.9.2010 at LIC office   towards  one time premium.

The O.P. No.1 in their written  version   in para-2 clearly contended that  the  above  policy  issued in favour of the complainant is a pension policy in which premium has been paid i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- and no other premium will be paid on installment basis. At the time of doing proposal the policy  holder i.e. complainant  has given  his consent to take monthly pension till he has alive and after that his nominee will get the pension amount. The complainant has been getting pension a sum of Rs.1335/- per month since November, 2010 till now. As per the option of the complainant  given in proposal form he will be paid only pension and no surrender value will be paid. This is standing rule of this pension policy that no surrender value will be paid.

 

        The O.P. No.1 in their written  version   in para-3 clearly contended that   as the policy has no surrender value, so the policy  can not be surrendered. It is the rule of this policy. Inspite of this complainant had applied for payment of surrender value which is not possible at all.

        The O.P. No.1 in their written  version   in para-4 clearly contended that   it is true that the O.P (LIC) is the statutory organization  to protect  the life of the assured, therefore LIC has designed different type of policies   to meet the different type of need  of the policy holders. Therefore he had to think  properly before taking  the pension policy. Once issued a policy No.   rule can not be changed.

        The O.P. No.1 in their written  version   in para-5 clearly contended that   the complainant has complained that the O.Ps have  intentionally delayed the matter, which is in his wrong  conception, LIC  does not want to harassed any body  but LIC has always been come forward to help its valuable policy holders.  This policy can not be surrendered.

This forum agree with the views taken by the O.P. in their written version.  We  do not  think  proper to go  into merit of this case.

So  to meet the  ends of justice    the following order is passed.

                                                            ORDER.

                 For the above stated  reasons, this forum  did not feel any inference in to the modos operandi  of the O.Ps their  endeavor regarding the liabilities fixed upon them to settled the claim in favour of the complainant according to the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence the O.Ps not found guilty and there is no deficiency in service  on the part of the O.Ps.  Hence we dismiss the present complaint.  There is no order as to cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this        9^th.       Day of   August,  2018.

 

                Member.                                             Member.                                                             President