Tripura

StateCommission

A/25/2021

Shri Amrit Lal Saha - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Miss. Mridula Bhattacharjee

23 Aug 2021

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

Case No. A.25.2021

 

 

 

1. 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.

… … … … … … Appellant/Complainant.

Vs

 

 

1. The Branch Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Agartala, Branch Office No.1,

Paradise Chowmuhani,

(Hospital Road Extension),

P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, Tripura West.

2. The Divisional Manager,

Life insurance Corporation of India,

Silchar Division, Silchar, Assam, Pin - 788015.

… … … … … … Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

Present

 

Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.B. Saha

President,

State Commission

 

Dr. Chhanda Bhattacharyya

Member,

State Commission

 

Mr. Kamalendu Bikash Das

Member,

State Commission

 

 

 

 

 

For the Appellant:                                               Mr. Debjyoti Debnath, Adv.

For the Respondents:                                          Mr. Prahlad Kumar Debnath, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment: 23.08.2021.

 

J U D G M E N T

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is filed against the judgment dated 28.06.2021 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Case No.C.C.97 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the learned District Commission dismissed the complaint petition.

2. Heard Mr. Debjyoti Debnath, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant (hereinafter referred to as complainant) as well as Mr. Prahlad Kumar Debnath, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties/Insurance Company).
3. Facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The complainant, Sri Amritlal Saha is permanently residing at Hotel Plaza, Masjid Patty, Agartala, Tripura West. It is stated in the complaint petition that Life Insurance Corporation of India had given a proposal to the complainant for obtaining one policy, namely, LICI's Jeevan Saral (with profits).  Thereafter, the complainant 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 i.e. 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 in the policy that the complainant will have to pay premium of Rs.12,250/- quarterly i.e. (four) installments be paid by the complainant in every year till the date of maturity of the policy. As per policy condition, the complainant will get an amount of Rs.10,000,00/- as maturity value. On the other hand, the complainant also entitled to get interest as per terms and conditions of the policy. After expiry of date of maturity of the policy, the complainant 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 in the complaint petition that during the pendency of the policy, the complainant had taken loan from the opposite party, Insurance Company amounting to Rs.97,250/- against the said policy. After maturity of the policy, the complainant claimed the maturity value as per condition of the policy and also claimed the interest on the sum assured, but the opposite parties, Insurance Company did not pay the same as claimed.

Having found no other alternative, the complainant served one Advocate's Notice dated 02.09.2019 which was duly received by the opposite party no.1. In regards to the said notice the opposite party no.1 sent a reply dated 09.09.2019 wherein they had denied in making the payment which has been claimed by the complainant. In reply, the opposite party no.1 stated that the maturity value will be Rs.2,09,202/- only and also relied that the complainant will be entitled to get Rs.2,09,202/- only which the complainant did not accept. Thereafter, the complainant on several occasions went to the office of the LIC and requested them to make the payment of assured maturity value as per policy condition, but the LICI Authority did not pay the amount as claimed by the complainant. It is further stated in the complaint petition that the opposite parties are bound to pay the matured value as per terms and conditions of the policy amounting to Rs.10,000,00/-.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the action of the opposite parties, the complainant filed the complaint petition before the learned District Commission claiming Rs.13,00,000/- as matured value of the policy along with interest as per rules and regulations of the policy up to date and also prayed for granting interest @12 % per annum on the awarded amount.
5. Upon receipt of the notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the case by filing written statement. In the written statement it is stated that the complaint petition 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 and proper party. It is also stated that the complaint petition is barred by principles of waiver, estoppels, acquiescence and law of limitation. It is further stated in the written statement that the complaint is baseless, false and motivated and these statements are denied and disputed by the opposite parties as the said amount was clearly reflected as death benefit sum assured. It is again stated that the life assured is alive and thus the life assured-complainant is not entitled to claim any amount of the death benefit of sum assured for Rs.10,000,00/-. Opposite parties, Insurance Company admitted that the maturity value is entitled as per condition of the policy. It is also contended 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 before filing of the compliant petition in respect to the instant policy claim after execution of discharge voucher by the life assured and thus, the opposite parties, LICI have fulfilled its obligation in terms of the policy contract immediately after maturity of the policy and the statement that the opposite parties 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 opposite parties LICI as the life assured has executed the discharge voucher. Thus, there is no deficiency in service in terms of the policy benefit by the opposite parties. Hence, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition.
6. The complainant submitted his examination-in-chief on affidavit and also produced four documents which are marked as Exhibit-1 and Exhibit- 2 series.
7. On the other hand, opposite parties submitted examination-in-chief on affidavit and examined one witness, namely, Sri Nabarun Ghosh, Branch Manager, Agartala Branch No.1, LICI. They also produced two documents which are marked as Exhibit-A series.
8. The learned District Commission after hearing the parties and taking note of the evidence on record passed the impugned judgment.
9. As aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.
10. Mr. Debjyoti Debnath, Ld. Counsel while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment would contend that as per policy, complainant is entitled to get the maturity value of the policy amounting to Rs.10,000,00/- even he is alive within the period of 10 years. He has also submitted that the learned District Commission had failed to consider the evidence on record particularly, the payment of premiums against the policy.
11. Mr. Prahlad Kumar Debnath, Ld. Counsel has taken us to the LIC’s Jeevan Saral Policy (with profits) and submitted that according to the Policy, the complainant is not entitled to get the maturity sum assured as he has already received the assured value before filing the complaint petition. He has mainly argued that nominee of the complainant is entitled to get the death benefit of sum assured under the main plan amounting to Rs.10,000,00/- only after his death subject to he paid premium of Rs.12,000/- quarterly and Rs.250/- for the accident benefit quarterly i.e. in total Rs.12,250/-. In the instant case, as the complainant had taken loan amounting to Rs.90,000/-, the opposite parties, Insurance Company paid him Rs.2,09,202/- for adjusting loan amount along with interest. He finally submitted that though the complainant received the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,09,202/- before filing of the complaint petition, but in his complaint petition he stated that he did not accept the aforesaid amount i.e. he suppressed the facts before the learned District Commission for which the learned District Commission dismissed the complaint petition.
12. We have gone through the evidence on record as well as the impugned judgment. According to us, the learned District Commission considered the entire facts of the case taking note of policy and then passed the impugned judgment. As we accepted the reasons given in the impugned judgment we are not going for detail discussion.

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the learned District Commission did not commit any error while passing the impugned judgment.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the learned District Commission, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura