BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc.,M.Phil., Male Member
Tuesday the 02nd day of June, 2009
C.C.No. 07/2009
Between:
R.Ratna Swamy,
R/o.9-11, Sunkulamma Street, Velugodu - 518 533, Kurnool District.
… Complainant
Versus
1. The Branch Manager,LIC of India,
D.No.1-39-15, K.G.Road, Near Bus Stand, Atmakur - 518 422, Kurnool District.
2. The Executive Director (C.R.M), C.R.M. Department , Central Office,
Yogakshema, Jeevan Bheema Marg,
Post Box No.19953, MUMBAI - 400 021.
… Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M. Sivaji Rao, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri. L.Hari Hara Natha Reddy, Advocate, for the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No. 2 is called absent set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Lady Member)
C.C.No.07/2009
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/S 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 seeking direction on the opposite parties to pay Rs.51,536/- along with assured interest, bonus and benefits, Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony, costs of the complaint, and any other relief or relief’s which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainants case is that complainant has taken a policy bearing No. 652590624 from opposite parties for assured amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. The mode of payment of premium is half yearly at the rate of Rs.11,649/- for 8 years and the complainant paid all the installments and on maturity the opposite parties have to pay the assured amount of Rs.2,00,000/- which interest and bonus. But the opposite parties on maturity of the policy paid Rs.1,48,464/- only. On approaching the opposite parties against the deficit payment, the complainant was forced to received the said amount only. Thereafter the complainant addressed two letters to opposite parties on 08-01-2008 and 03-06-2008 and the opposite parties replied on 20-06-2008 stating that at the time of taking policy the complainant was suffering with some health problems, an extra premium of Rs.2,370/- was included in the premium amount of Rs.11,649/- and at the time of payment of maturity amount the extra premium was excluded. But the complainant submits that he is entitled to full maturity amount with profits and bonus and caused a legal notice dated 03-11-2008 to opposite parties demanding payment of deducted amount of Rs.51,536/- as there was no reply hence, the complainant approached the forum for relief’s.
3. In support of his case the complainant relied on the following document viz (i) letter dated 12-12-2007 of opposite party No.1 to complainant, (2) letter dated 8-1-2008 of complainant t o opposite party NO.1. (3) letter dated 3-6-2008 of complainant to opposite parties No.2, (4) letter dated 20-6-2008 of opposite party No.2 to complainant and (5) office copy of legal notice dated 3-11-2008 along with postal receipt and acknowledgements, besides to the sworn affidavit of complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A5 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite party No.1 appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filling written version and opposite party NO.2 remained absent throughout the case proceedings and were made exparte.
5. The written version of opposite party No.1 denies the complaint as not maintainable either in Law or o n facts, but admits the complainant has taken a policy bearing No.652590624 for Rs.2,00,000/- with a condition of extra premium of Rs.23.70 Rs. Per 1000 sum assured and the said policy was accepted by the complainant a n d agreed to pay premium of Rs.11,649/- including health extra premium of Rs. 2,370/- and in fact the half yearly premium is only Rs. 9,279/- as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Under column of maturity benefit, it is mentioned that in the event of life assured surviving, the date of maturity, a sum equal to total amount of premium paid, excluding all extra premium together with loyality addition if any shall be payable. In fact the actuarial department of opposite parties till date has not declared any loyality addition for the plan (Nav Bharath plan without profits) under which the complainant obtained the policy, hence no loyalty addition is payable under the policy issued to the complainant and the complainant is entitled to only Rs.1,48,464/- as mentioned in the written version of opposite parties a n d the same is paid to the complainant on 28-1-2007 and the complainant received the said amount without protest and the opposite parties discharged its liability in full and final settlement of the policy issued to the complainant and lastly seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. The opposite parties in support of their case relied on the following documents:- viz (1) policy bond No.652590624 issued to the complainant (2) letter dated 8-4-2000 of complainant to opposite party No.1 (3) discharge voucher dated 12-12-2007 (4) letter dated 17-3-2008 of Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India to the complainant (5) letter dated 20-6-2008 of opposite party NO.2 to the complainant and (6) Form No.3327 i.e. personal history of gal bladder decease of complainant dated 31-3-2000, besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.1 in reiteration of his written version averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.B1 to B6 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
7. Hence the point for condition is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties?
8. It is the case of the complainant that he has taken a policy bearing No.652590624 from the opposite parties for R s.2,00,000/- vide Ex.B1. The Ex B1 is the NAV BHARATH PLAN –WITHOUT PROFITS policy issued to the complainant by the opposite parties and the date of commencement of the policy in mentioned as 28-12-1999 and the half yearly premium is Rs.11,649/- and the complainant paid all premium. On the date of maturity the opposite parties instead of paying amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest and bonus paid only Rs.1,48,464/- vide Ex.B3 . The Ex.B3 is the discharge voucher dated 12-12-2007 signed by the complainant as to the receipt of Rs. 1,48,464/- in full and final settlement of the claim under the policy bearing No.652590624. But the complainant submits that he is entitled to assured amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with bonus and interest.
9. On the other side the opposite parties in their written version averments submits that , as per the policy issued to the complainant in the column of maturity benefit , it is clearly mentioned that in the event of the life assured surviving the date of maturity, a sum equal to the total amount of premium paid, excluding all extra premiums together will loyalty addition if any shall be payable. The opposite parties further submitted that at the time of submitting the proposal the complainant was suffering with disease and the proposal was accepted by the opposite parties with condition of extra premium of Rs.23.70 per 1000 sum assured and Rs.2,370/- was included as an extra premium to the premium of Rs.11,649/-, in actuality the complainant paid only Rs.9,279/- as premium and on maturity of the policy the complainant is entitled to premium paid excluding all extra premium, i.e. Rs.9,279/- X 16 installments = 1,48,464/- and the same was received by complainant on 12-12-2007 as full and final settlement of the claim and executed a discharge voucher Ex.B3 in favor of opposite parties. The opposite parties in support of their case relied on the decision of National Commission between Birla VXL ltd., and another Vs National Insurance Company Limited, reported in I (2009) CPJ Pg. 259, where in it, was held that when once the amount mentioned in the discharge vouchers has been received towards full and final discharge of the claim under the policy and the said payment is towards full and final settlement of the claim. In the present case also the complainant received the amount of Rs.1,48,464/- as full and final settlement of the claim under Ex.B3 and the complainant further cannot claim any amount unless he proves that they discharge voucher executed by him is under fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation as like that, in the absence of any of the above the complainant cannot get any relief, as per the decision of the Supreme Court between United India Insurance Vs Ajmer Singh Cotton & General mills and other etc. reported in 1999 NCJ (SC).
10. The decision relied by the complainant is that of our State Commission between National Insurance Company Vs Jagarlamudi Satyanarayana reported in II 209 CPJ (1) when in it was held that insurance company cannot reduce the assured loss on the ground that the complainant issued discharge voucher towards full and final settlement of claim, misrepresentation on part of the insurance company is proved and the insurance company is liable to pay the balance amount.
11. But in the present case there is no misrepresentation proved on part of the opposite parties, it is for the complainant to prove that the discharge voucher obtained by the opposite parties is under fraud and undue influence, but there is nothing on record to prove the same, and there is no material on record to prove that the discharge voucher is obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, hence the decision relied by the complainant doesn’t support his case.
12. The other plea of the complainant is that the opposite parties are at deficiency of service in not declaring loyalty to the complainant’s policy, in the policy itself it is mentioned that loyalty if any declared. The opposite parties in their written version submitted that loyalty has not been declared by the actuarial department and hence the complainant is not entitled to any loyalty.
13. To sum up, relying on the decision cited above and the discursions made supra, the complainant utterly failed to prove his case and hence is not remaining entitled to any of the relief’s claimed and the complaint is dismissed for want of merit and force.
14. In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 02nd day of June , 2009.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT MALE MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Letter dated 12-12-2007 of opposite party No.1 to complainant.
Ex.A2. Letter dated 08-01-2008 of complainant to opposite party No.1.
Ex.A3. Letter dated 03-06-2008 of complainant to opposite party No.2.
Ex.A4. Letter dated 20-06-2008 of opposite party No.2 to complainant
Ex.A5. Office copy of legal notice dated 03-11-2008 along with postal receipt and acknowledgements.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1. Policy bond No.652590624 issued to the complainant.
Ex.B2. Letter dated 08-04-2000 of complainant to opposite party No.1.
Ex.B3. Discharge voucher dated 12-12-2007.
Ex.B4. Letter dated 17-3-2008 of Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India to the complainant.
Ex.B5. Letter dated 20-06-2008 of opposite party No.2 to the complainant
Ex.B6. Form No.3327 i.e. personal history of Gal bladder decease of
complainant dated 31-03-2000.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT MALE MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
