Hon'ble Mrs. Rumpa Mandal, Member.
The pith and substance of the case of Complaint is that the Complainant Smt. Radha Biswas is the wife of deceased Arup Kr. Biswas in whose name an LIC policy was registered. Being the nominee of the LIC policy submits that her husband Arup Kr. Biswas was a retired service man. Being convinced the husband of the Complainant opted LIC policy being code No.07387455476 for Rs. 8 Lakhs for yearly pension basis as per instruction of Agent of OP Mr. Papan Chakraborty on 27.11.17 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Cooch Behar in favour of the LICI and handed over the same to the said Agent, who assured that her husband would get Rs.55,334/- as yearly pension/ annuity. In the middle part of December the husband of the Complainant received a policy deed from LICI which reveals that, “ Net Notional cash Option amount of Rs.7,86,000/- and Rs.14,000/- was deducted as GST from the amount paid by the husband of the Complainant. The policy No. is 400349154 under pension plan New Jeevan Akshyay-VI(Table-189), the payment of pension/ annuity should be made through NEFT to the bank A/C No.09010100009201 maintained with Bank of Baroda, Cooch Behar Branch. Unfortunately, the husband of the Complainant died on 09.02.18 due to Cardio Respiratory Failure at Subham Hospital, Cooch Behar. The Complainant informed the said matter to the Agent through Sri Papon Chakraborty. Subsequently, on 18.08.18 the Complainant lodged the claim as nominee of the said LIC policy before the O.P. No.1 and handed over the original policy deeds alongwith necessary documents. Subsequently, on 20.04.18 the Complainant had received Rs.7,86,000/- from the OP through transfer to her Savings Account maintained with Bank of Baroda. But the LICI did not pay any pension or annuity to her although her husband was alive for 74 days from 27.11.17 to 09.02.18. On question to the Agent as to why he was debarred from obtaining annuity for 74 days, the Agent was unable to give any reply. Subsequently, the Complainant submitted a letter to the OP on 31.05.18 claiming the said annuity for 74 days but the OP did not reply or pay any amount. The Complainant claimed the accrued annuity for Rs.11,218.40 but the OP did not pay any money towards annuity. Deceased husband opted for receiving annuity/ pension yearly but the OP without any valid reason deprived the Complainant for which the Complainant suffered mental pain and agony. He is a senior citizen and it is an unfair trade practice adopted by the OP. The cause of action for the present case arose on 27.11.17 and thereafter on several dates.
The Complainant prayed for an award for Rs. 42,218/- towards accrued annuity, mental pain and agony, deficiency in service and cost of litigation.
The OP denied each and every allegation through their written version and claimed that the Complaint case is vexatious which should be dismissed in lemini. The positive defence case of the OP in brief is that the husband of the Complainant deceased Arup Kr. Biswas took up the LIC policy as stated in the complaint. The Complainant submitted the proposal on 27.11.17 through their Agent Papon Chakraborty and duly paid Rs.8,00148/- and filled up the proposal form No.440(JA) and ticked up option F (DOC-1) wherein it is clearly narrated that the nature of the annuity is for life with a provision for 100% refund of purchase price to the spouse on death of the Annuitant. Purchase price in the proposal is the clearly mentioned as Rs.7,86,000/- which indicates that the proposer was well aware about GST Provisions. Thereafter the O.P. No.1 registered the proposal and accepted the same. Subsequently, the incident of death of the Annuitant was intimated to the OP on 18.04.18. Accordingly, the Branch Office refunded the purchase price within two days. The benefit of the policy is clearly mentioned that “Annuity for life and return of purchase price on death” payment of annuity is different with interest. Annuity cannot be paid to a dead person. In the instant case the annuity did not fall due on the date of death. Therefore payment of residual annuity does not arise. It is the duty of the OP to insure the life of the people. The Complainant having been with malafide intention filed this case illegally. The OP therefore claimed that the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
The specific claim of the Complainant and denial of the same by the OP with specified reasons led this Commission to ascertain the following points for proper adjudication of the case.
Points for determination
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer under the CP Act?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief if any the Complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with reasons
Point No.1.
It is the admitted position that the Complainant Smt. Radha Biswas is nominee of her husband Arup Kr. Biswas registered the LIC policy with annuity having policy No.400349154 under pension plan New Jeevan Akshyay-VI(Table-189) for a sum of Rs.8 Lakhs against which GST was deducted for Rs.14,000/-. It is also the admitted fact that the husband of the Complainant died unfortunately on 09.02.18. The Complainant as a nominee filed the present case against the OP.
Thus having considered the relation between the parties it is crystal clear that the Complainant is a consumer under the OP.
Therefore Point No.1 is decided in favour of the Complainant and goes in her favour.
Point Nos. 3 & 4.
Both the points are taken up together for convenience and brevity of discussion. The Complainant in order to substantiate the case adduced oral evidence by means of affidavit in chief and also files some documents being Annexure- 1 to 9.
In order to ascertain the present Point Nos. 3 & 4 as to whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for let us have a thread- bearing analysis of the evidence on record. It is the admitted position that the insurance policy was taken in the name of Arup Kr. Biswas. Annexure-3 is the said LIC policy document in the name of deceased husband Arup Kr. Biswas wherein his wife Smt. Radha Biswas is registered as nominee of the said policy. Date of proposal as per Annexure-3 is 27.11.17 and date of first annuity as per the said document is 27.11.18. Mode of payment of annuity is yearly and amount of annuity is Rs.55,334/-.
It is fact that the Complainant paid Rs. 8 Lakhs towards the said annuity but GST was deducted for Rs.14,000/- and accordingly the actual amount of policy was Rs.7,86,000/-. The OP clearly stated through their letter during the life time of Annuitant Arup Kr. Biswas husband of the Complainant. It is the defence plea that GST was deducted and deposited to the Govt. as per the standing provision of law. Therefore they cannot be held responsible towards any unauthorised deduction for GST.
It is the admitted fact that the Complainant’s husband died on 09.02.18. Annexure-1 being the death certificate which supports the claim of the Complainant. However since the OP did not deny the said unfortunate death so let us march forward towards the genuinety of the claim. Annexure-4 discloses that the said policy was registered and subsequently death claim was placed against the policy No.400349154 against which the acknowledgement receipt was issued.
The Complainant in order to realisation of the annuity money sent a letter to the Branch Manager LIC, Cooch Behar on 30.05.18 wherein a sum of Rs.11,218/- was claimed towards pension for 74 days. Since the money was not paid so another letter was sent to the OP by the Complainant on 23.02.19 vide Annexure-8 all these letters was duly sent through registered post and Annexure-9 substantiate this fact.
It is the specific defence plea that annuity is paid on yearly basis so the Complainant is not entitled to get the relief since the Annuitant died before completion of one years from the date of registration.
If we consider Annexure-3 being a letter on registering the pension plan New Jeevan Akshyay-VI(Table-189) intimation for payment of annuity, the details of annuity discloses that annuity option is yearly annuity payment mode. In the said letter it is stated inter alia that the above policy will be vest on 27.11.17 and the annuity payment will start after 12 months from the date of visiting.
Ld. Advocate for the OP argued that since the husband of the nominee died before 12 months so Complainant cannot claim any amount for the broken period. It is fact that in the said letter dated 14.12.17 being Annexure-3 it is stated that due to administrative reason the first payment shall be paid on 01.12.18 alongwith the broken period annuity on 27.11.18 to 30.11.18. Thereafter annuity will be paid on the first of every year.
Ld. Defence counsel argued that annuity is paid on yearly basis. It became due on 26.11.18 but the husband of the Complainant died on 09.02.18. It is not a case for payment of pension or annuity to be calculated per day. Annexure-3 thus clearly supports the defence case and negates the case of the Complainant. It is also stated in the said intimation letter being Annexure-3 that annuity amount is calculated on the basis of Net Notional cash Option and as per annuity obtain(F) opted by you.
Thus there is no document wherefrom it can be found that the annuity is payable for any friction number which the Annuitant was alive.
It is fact that Complainant corresponded with the OP through different letter and claimed Rs. 11,218.40 as accrued annuity for the period 27.11.17 to 08.02.18 i.e. for 74 days but there is no document to establish that there was any agreement between the Complainant and the OP by which the OP agreed to pay any amount for the fraction period as accrued annuity on the life of Annuitant died before the expiry of one year from the first date of registration.
It is the admitted position that the OP refunded Rs.7,86,000/- in her account on 20.04.18 through NEFT Jalpaiguri.
In the letter being Annexure-6 Complainant claimed that no amount of pension as per the policy agreement was credited to her bank account.
Ld. Defence Counsel argued that there was no agreement to pay pension/Annuity for any precaution period without completion of one year. Annexure-3 discloses the heading about the said policy as pension plan New Jeevan Akshyay. The name may be pension but the mode of payment under the said scheme is yearly and it is clearly mentioned under heading annuity details that annuity payment mode is yearly. Therefore fractional amount annuity is rightly claimed to have been not payable to the Complainant by the OP.
Thus after assessing the entire evidence on the basis of the agreement between the parties vis-à-vis the specific terms of the agreement for the said policy it is clearly established that there is no provision for payment of any annuity before completion of one year. Accordingly the claim of the Complainant for realization of the sum as stated in the complaint could not be established up to the hilt.
In the light discussion made here in above and having assessed the evidence on record the Commission comes to the findings that the Complainant failed to establish the claim up to the hilt. In the result the complaint case fails. Point Nos. 2 & 3 are thus decided in negative and goes against the Complainant.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the case No. CC/120/2019 be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order be also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
