THE PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE No. CC- 97 of 2019

 

Sri Amritlal Saha,

S/O- Late- Radha Raman Saha,

proprietor of Hotel namely 

Hotel Plaza, situated at Masjid Patty,

Santipara, Agartala, P.S. East Agartala,

P.O. Agartala, Tripura West. ...….................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. The Branch Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Agartala, Branch Office No.1,

Paradise Chowmuhani,

(Hospital Road Extension),

P.O. Agartala, Agartala, 

P.S. West Agt., Tripura West.

 

 

2. The Divisional Manager,

Life insurance Corporation of 

India,  Silchar Division, 

Silchar, Assam, Pin- 788015.  ..................Opposite Parties.

 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

Dr (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Asutosh De,

  Sri Partha Rn. Sarkar,

  Miss Mridula Bhattacharjee,

  Sri Debojyoti Debnath,

  Learned Advocates.

    

For the O.P.  : Sri Prahlad Debnath,

  Learned Advocate.

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  28.06.2021

 

 

J U D G M E N T

The Complainant's case in short is that the  complainant is permanently residing at Hotel Plaza, Masjid Patty, Agartala, Tripura West. It is stated by the complainant that Life Insurance Corporation of India had given a proposal to the petition for obtaining one policy namely LICI's Jeevan Saral (with profits).  After giving the proposal by the Opposite parties(in short O.Ps) the petitioner obtained the said policy which was commenced on 03.07.2009 and the said policy was for the period from 03.07.2009 to 03.07.2019 ie., the date of maturity of the policy was on 03.07.2019 vide policy no- 492517248 adopted on 24.06.2009 vide proposal no- 4837. The condition of the said policy was death benefit, sum assured under the main plan Rs.10,000,00/-. It was stipulated that the petitioner will have to pay installment of Rs.12,250/- quarterly i.e., (four) installment be paid by the petitioner in every year till the date of maturity of the policy. That the petitioner had been paid installments @ 12,250/- quarterly without any fail till the date of maturity of the policy. As per policy condition the petitioner will get an amount of Rs.10,000,00/- as maturity value. On the other hand, the petitioner also entitled to get interest as per terms and conditions of the policy. After expiry of date of maturity  of the policy the petitioner claimed his maturity value amounting to Rs.10,000,00/- along with interest as per terms and conditions of the policy. It is also stated by the petitioner that during the pendency of the policy  the petitioner had taken loan amounting to Rs.97,250/- against the said policy. After  maturity of the policy the petitioner claimed the maturity value as per condition of the policy and also claimed the interest on the sum assured. But the O.Ps did not pay the same. Finding no other alternative the petitioner served one Advocate's notice dated 02.09.2019 which was duly received by the O.Ps No.1. In regards to the said notice the O.P. No.1 sent a reply dated 09.09.2019 wherein they had denied in making the payment which has been claimed by the petitioner. In his rely the O.P. No.1 stated that the maturity value  will be Rs.2,09,202/- only and also relied that the petitioner will be entitled to get Rs.2,09,202/- only which the petitioner did not accept. Thereafter, the petitioner on several occasions went to the office of the LIC and requested them to make the payment of maturity value as per policy condition but the authority till today did not pay the amount as claimed by the petitioner. It is stated by the petitioner that the O.Ps are bound to pay the matured value as per terms and condition of the policy amounting to Rs.10,000,00/-. 

Thus, he filed this case claiming Rs.13,00,000/- in favour of the himself as maturity value of the policy along with interest as per rules and regulation of the policy up to date. He also prayed for granting interest @ 12 % per annum on the awarded amount. Hence this case. 

 

2. On the other hand, O.P. also appeared and contested the suit by way of filing written version. In the written version O.P. stated that the complaint is not maintainable and there is no cause of action and jurisdiction in the instant complaint case. And also bad for non-joinder of necessary & proper party. The complaint petition is barred by waive, estoppels, acquiescence and law of limitation. It is stated by the O.Ps that the complaint is baseless, false and motivated and these statements are denied and disputed by the O.Ps as the said amount was clearly reflected as death benefit sum assured. It is also stated by the O.Ps that the life assured is alive and thus the life assured complainant is not entitled to claim any amount of the death benefit sum assured for Rs.10,000,00/-. O.P. admitted the maturity value as per condition of the policy. O.Ps also stated that the life assured is entitled to  get the gross amount of Rs.3,70,956/- only and after deduction of loan amount and interest Rs.2,09,202/- was paid in respect to the instant policy claim after execution of discharge voucher by the life assured and thus the O.Ps LICI have fulfilled its obligation in terms of the policy contract immediately after maturity of the policy and the statement that the O.Ps LICI till today did not pay the claimed amount of maturity benefit are totally baseless, false and motivated and thus these statement are denied and disputed by the O.Ps LICI as the life assured has executed the discharge voucher. Thus, the O.Ps submitted that there is no deficiency in service in terms of the policy benefit. Thus, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

 

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

Complainant submitted examination in chief on affidavit.  He also produced 4 documents which are marked as Exhibit- 1 and Exhibit- 2 Series. 

On the other hand, O.P. submitted examination in chief on affidavit of one witness namely Sri Nabarun Ghosh, Branch Manager, Agartala Branch No.1, LICI. Also produced 2  documents which are marked as Exhibit- A Series.

 

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED: - 

(ii) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps?

  (iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/ relief as prayed for?

 

5. ARGUMENTS: - 

Written argument was submitted on behalf of the complainant. In the written argument it is stated that as per condition of the policy the death benefit sum assured under the main plan was Rs.10,000,00/- only. There was a stipulation that after maturity of the policy complainant will get an amount of Rs.10,000,00/- as matured value and also also entitled to get with  interest. It is further stated that the complainant also took loan amounting to Rs.97,250/- against the said policy and the loan amount was deducted from the policy. Complainant served one advocate notice dated 02.09.2019 and they replied on 09.09.2019 and denied for making the payment which the complainant claimed. Complainant did not accept the amount which is offered by the O.P. It is further stated in the written argument that O.Ps are duty bound to make the payment amounting to Rs.10,000,00/- as per policy condition. 

On the other hand, Learned Counsel Mr. P.K. Debnath appearing for the O.Ps submitted that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant suppressed the material fact and also made contradictory version in the complaint as as well documents submitted by him. Mr. Debnath pointed out that at Page-7 of the complaint petition complainant made a statement that LIC is ready to pay an amount of Rs.2,09,202/- only which is not received by the petitioner. Whereas in the legal notice(Exhibit- 1 Series documents) complainant admitted that he has received the amount  of Rs.2,60,320/-. So the complainant did not come with clean hands and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Mr. Debnath further submitted that the exhibited documents A Series clearly speak that complainant is only entitled to get an amount of Rs.2,09,202/- after adjustment of loan amount and that amount  was disbursed and complainant received the sum. The claim of the complainant is not justifiable as it is not a case of death. In case of death, the survivors will have to get death benefit but complainant is not entitled to get such benefit as he is alive.

             

DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:-

                 Both the points are taken up together for convenience. We have meticulously gone through the pleadings of the parties as well as documents adduced by both sides. On perusal of the complaint as well as the documents exhibited from the side of the complainant, we find that there are contradictory statements. In the complaint petition complainant stated that he did not receive any amount from the O.P. whereas he in the legal notice admitted that he received a sum of money from the O.P. The exhibited  documents submitted by the O.P. speak that the complainant was given Rs.2,09,202/- after adjustment of loan amount. The complainant failed to establish his claim by adducing documents. Mere assertion is not enough to prove the case. Complainant ought to have prove his case by adducing supporting documents but the document submitted by the complainant are not enough to prove the complainant's case.

In the result, we are in the opinion that the complainant has failed to make out a case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.    

Supply a certified copy of the judgment to both the parties free of costs.

 

 

Announced.

 

 

 

SRI R. PAL

PRESIDENT, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

Dr (SMT) B. PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.