Orissa

Debagarh

CC/14/2015

Smt. Sanjukta Panigrahi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager , L.I.C. of india, Kuchinda Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Sribatsa Mishra

02 Sep 2016

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

DEOGARH

 

Shri P. C. Mahapatra, Member and Smt. Jayanti Pradhan, Member

 

                    Smt. Sanjukta Panigrahi,

At/PO – Purunagarh,

Dist. - Deogarh                                                                          …        Complainant.

 

                     Branch Manager,

L.I.C of India, Kuchinda Branch,

At/Post – Kuchinda,

Dist – Sambalpur                                                                        …        Opposite Party.

 

CD Case No.13/2015

Date of hearing 20.08.2016                Date of Order 02.09.2016

              

                            Counsel for the parties:

                            For the Complainant           :         Shri Sribatsa Mishra, Advocate

                            For the Opposite Parties      :        Shri Pramathesh Guru, Advocate

 

 

PRATAP CHANDRA MAHAPATRA, MEMBER –  The factual matrix of the case is that Smt. Sanjukta Panigrahi, W/O – Bimal Kumar Dwibedy resident of Ratha Sahi of Purunagarh, PO – Purunagarh, PS/Dist – Deogarh (hereinafter termed as the Complainant) has taken a Jeevana Suravee Policy marketed by Life Insurance Corporation of India through their Kuchinda Branch (hereafter mentioned as Opposite Party) for an assured sum of  55,000/-  bearing Policy No.591382495 for a period of 20 years subjected to payment of monthly premium of Rs.527/- to be deducted from her salary on 26.09.2006. As per the terms of the Policy OP has agreed to make payments on happening of events as stated on the body of the Policy document which reads as under:

               Death before Date of Maturity                               Sum Assured + Vested Bonus

               Surviving 4 years from Date of Commencement   25% of the Sum Assured

               Surviving 8 years from Date of Commencement   25% of the Sum Assured

               Surviving 12 years from Date of Commencement 25% of the Sum Assured

               Surviving 15 years from Date of Commencement 25% of the Sum Assured

               Surviving on the Date of Maturity                         Vested Bonus only.

Accordingly Complainant would have been paid Rs.13,750/- on 26.09.2010 by OP but OP paid only Rs.9007/- short by Rs.4,743/- from the agreed sum. OP remained silent even after the matter was communicated to him by complainant on 20.02.2015 till the present complaint filed on 17.04.2015.

2.  OP in his Written Version while admitting contents of Paras 1 & 2 has questioned maintainability of the case with no valid cause of action.  It has been contended by OP that the policy in question being under Salary Saving Scheme (here after termed as SSS) are attached to specific Offices of the Corporation depending on Policy holders posting, pay disbursing authorities and treasury from which salary is to be drawn etc. OP has alleged that after transfer of the complainant from one Pay disbursing authority to another, the complainant should have informed his Kuchinda Branch of such transfer to avoid complicacy in receipt and adjustment of the premiums side by side settlement of claims.

              

3. Since it was felt by this Forum that OP is not a keen to be heard after a series of adjournments of dates fixed for hearing heard the version of complainant 18.07.2016 and even provided OP opportunity to be heard on 03.08.2016 than adjourned to 20.08.2016 in order to up keep the spirit of this benevolent legislation decided to pronounce its final order on the merits of documents adduced. On perusal of documents filed by either parties it is found:

1. OP has admitted to have paid short by an amount of Rs.4,743/- than the agreed amount of Rs.13,750/-. The reasons of such short payment cannot be accepted as OP has failed to have informed complainant of any non-payment of monthly premium ever. The reasons so stated is internal matters of OP to which complainant nothing has to contribute like attaching policy holders to different branch offices of OP etc. against the crystal clear assurance in the Policy document to pay back 25% of the sum assured on completion of 4 years from Date of Commencement of Policy.
2. It has been shown that out of Rs.4,743/- the short amount, Rs.3,162/- has been paid to complainant vide cheque no.666614 of dated 31.03.2011 and Rs.527/- by transfer through NEFT to the complainant’s Bank Account bearing No.10761665761 on 20.05.2015. This fact has been admitted by the complainant during hearing on 18.07.2016.

c)      Although still remain to be paid Rs.1,054/-, it is seen that complainant has not disclosed the fact that Rs.3,162/- had already been received by him on 31.03.2011 in his complaint petition filed on 17.04.2015, rather has stated.

        We find latches with OP but at the same time complainant has not come with clean hands. Hence we do not like to interfere in to it.

O R D E R

 

The complaint petition is dis-allowed.

Office is directed to supply the free copies of the order to the parties keeping acknowledgement of the receipt and date thereof.

      Order pronounced in the open court today i.e. 2^nd. Day of September, 2016 under my hand and seal of this forum.

 

I     agree,             

 

 

MEMBER (W)                                                                                  MEMBER 

 

Dictated and Corrected

by me.

 

MEMBER