West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/10/2015

Kashi Nath Saren - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India - Opp.Party(s)

12 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President, Mrs. Debi Sengupta,Member

and Kapot Kumar Chattopadhyay, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.10/2015

                                                        

                            Kashi Nath Saren…………….………Complainant

                                                              Versus

               1)The Branch Manager, L.I.C.I.;

               2)The Divisional Manager, L..I.C.

                                                                              ………..Opp. Parties.

 

For the Complainant: Mr. Swapan Kumar Bhattacherjee, Advocate.

For the O.P.               : Mr. Swapan Bhattacherjee, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 12/08/2015

                               

ORDER

                 Bibekananda Pramanik, President - Complainant case, in brief, is that he is the policy holder of Life Insurance Company Ltd. being policy no.430963918 amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- for a continuous period of 20 years and annual premium of that policy  was Rs.5,425/-.  The complainant paid regular annual premium.  After maturity of that policy, the complainant went to the office of O.P. no.1 the Branch Manager, L.I.C., Kharagpur Branch and submitted a written application and on receiving the same, O.P. no.1 asked the complainant to submit necessary particulars.  The complainant deposited all those papers and thereafter he came to know that he will get Rs.2,19,000/- as maturity value of that policy.  Hearing that, the complainant became astonished and he made several written representation before the O.P. nos. 1 & 2, but all are in vain.  Lastly  on 14/10/14, the complainant went to the office of the O.Ps and submitted a written application thereby requesting the O.P. to let him know about the details of the account against the policy but very unfortunately, they did not care to settle the matter according to law.  Hence, the

Contd…………..P/2

 

                                                                                                    -  ( 2 ) –

complaint, praying for directing  the O.Ps to pay the actual cover money as per policy and to furnish the details account to the complainant and for other reliefs.

                   O.Ps. have contested this case by filing a joint w/o.  Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the O.Ps that the complainant is a bonafide policy holder and the sum insured was Rs.1,00,000/- only.  As per terms and conditions of that policy, the complainant is entitled to Rs.2,19,000/- as maturity benefit as on 28/10/12.  Complainant was duly informed about that but he did not care to produce the documents which were asked for by the O.Ps.  It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps.     

Points for decision

 

                              Is the complainant entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for?

 

Decision with reasons

                  Admittedly, the complainant is the bonafide policy holder of L.I.C.I.  being policy no.430963918 and the sum assured was Rs.1,00,000/-.  It is not denied and disputed that the O.Ps informed the complainant in time that he will get maturity value under that policy amounting to Rs.2,19,000/-. From the copies of documents, filed by the complainant, we find that by their letter dated 17/08/12, the O.Ps informed the complainant that the maturity benefit of the policy is Rs.2,19,000/- as on 28/10/12 and the O.Ps also requested the complainant to submit necessary documents before the due date of claim.  In his petition of complaint as well as at the time of hearing of argument, Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted that he is entitled  to get around Rs.3,00,000/- as maturity value of that policy.  It appears from the copy of letter addressed to the Branch Manager of L.I.C., Kharagpur Branch,  send by the present complainant, that before entering into the contract with the L.I.C., the Development Officer told him that the maturity payable under that policy will be approx Rs.3,00,000/- .  At the time of hearing of argument, Ld. lawyer also submitted that the complainant is entitled to get around Rs.3,00,000/- under that policy but the O.Ps did not furnish the details account regarding the maturity value of that policy.  In this connection, we find from a copy of letter, submitted by the complainant, that the L.I.C. gave the details account of maturity value of Rs.2,19,000/-,  thereby stating that sum assured was Rs.1,00,000/- + vested bonus  Rs.1,10,800/- + interim bonus Rs. 4,200/- and FAB Rs. 4,000/- and total thereof is Rs. 2,19,000/-.  So, the complainant should not have any grievance that the O.Ps did not furnish the details account of such maturity value of the policy.  Regarding the allegation of the complainant that at the time of making the policy,

Contd…………..P/3

 

                                                                                                           -  ( 3 ) –

the concerned Development Officer assured  him that he would get Rs.3,00,000/- as maturity value of that amount. We find that said claim of the complainant is without any basis.  There is no document to show that the O.Ps assured the complainant that the maturity value of that policy will be around Rs.3,00,000/-.  Such claim of the complainant is nothing but a vague and baseless claim. On the other hand, we find from the copy of letter of the L.I.C., so submitted by none else than the complainant, that the O.Ps have gave details of the maturity amount, as stated earlier.  We, therefore, find that the O.Ps duly informed the complainant regarding the date of maturity, maturity value of the policy etc. and also asked the complainant to submit necessary documents for settling the claim.  It is none but the complainant refused to take the said amount on the plea that the maturity value of that policy would be approx Rs.3,00,000/-.  We have already stated that such claim of the complainant is vague, baseless and without basis.  We thus find that there is not deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.  In view of that, it is held that the complainant’s case must fail.    

                                              Hence, it is,

                                                                 Ordered,

                                                                               that the complaint case no.10/2015 is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.          

Dictated & Corrected by me

                Sd/-                                Sd/-                                    Sd/-                                          Sd/-

           President                         Member                              Member                                  President

                                                                                                                                          District Forum

                                                                                                                                       Paschim Medinipur