BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE URBAN

2^nd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. The Complaint seeks the following reliefs against the OPs:-

(a) Directing the OPs to refund all these policies premium amount of total Rs.1,70,000/- along with proper interest till date from policy No..616806290, policy No.617837615, policy No.617837616 to the complainant’s account bearing SBI Bank account No.10562777211, RPC Layout Branch, Bangalore (IFSC Code SBIN0007989) thro RTGS or Cheque OR directing the OPs to pay the entire three policies maturity amount to the complainant.

(b) Directing the OPs to maintain all the three policy benefits to the complainant until refunding all three policy premium amounts along with interest to complainant’s bank account.

(c) Directing the OPs to pay the litigation expenses cost of Rs.25,000/- order or direction as deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the above case, in the interest of justice.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant being the Government Employee took the following policy from the OP No.1 policy bearing No.616806290 for sum assured amount of Rs.2,00,000/- commenced on 17.10.2012 with premium of Rs.1,249/- per month and date of maturity is 17.09.2028.  His monthly premium till 2018 has been deducted from his bank account with Corporation Bank.

3. It is further case of the complainant that he further states that he took two more policies from OP No.2 while working at K.R.Pet Taluk (a) policy bearing No.617837615 for sum assured amount of Rs.3,00,000/- commenced on 06.01.2018, premium payable Rs.1,984/- per month and date of maturity is 06.01.2038 a. a possession certificate on 19.04.2003 and (b) policy bearing No.617837616 for sum assured amount of Rs.5,00,000/- commenced on 06.01.2018 with monthly premium of Rs.2,300/- and date of maturity is 06.01.2039.  He has paid the premium of both the policies through HRMS till April, 2019.

4. During the March, 2019 there was a telephonic call from OP No.1 with regard to above three policies stating that premium amount is not yet received from LIC, K.R.Pet branch.  Then he immediately requested OP No.2 on 11.03.2019 to transfer the amount to OP No.1 in respect of the premium deducted from April 2018 to April 2019.  In the month of May, 2019 again there was a telephonic call from OP No.1 in respect of above three policies stating that the amount received through HRMS is received from LIC, K.R.Pet Branch and on 12.05.2019 he made request to OP No.2 to refund all the three policy premium amount which deducted from his salary from April 2018 to April 2019 to the tune of Rs.72,059/-.  There was no response from the OPs.  The OPs failed to refund his premium amount with accrued interest.  This act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service.  He received a letter from OP No.1 dated 04.10.2019 as they received amount of two policy bearing No.617837615 and 617837616.  But, demanded Rs.1,157/- and Rs.3,662/- difference amount in respect of these two policies.  He also received letter from OP No.2 dated 22.10.2019 as they are ready to revive the policy bearing No.616806290 under ECS mode and conversion to salary savings scheme only after payment of late fee Rs.6,117/- including late fee of Rs.1,207/-.  This demand is illegal.  Hence, this complaint.

5. After receipt of notice, both the OPs appeared and filed version.  They admit premium of three policies on respective dates from sum assured.  The premium of policy No.616806290 was ECS mode and premium paid till June 2018.  The premium of other two policies bearing Nos.617837615 and 617837616 paid upto April,2019 through ECS (NACH) mode.  The premium of these two policies was directly adjusted from bank account of policy holder.  The policies came to be lapsed for non-payment of premium.  But, policies were not cancelled.  Therefore, complainant was called upon to pay late fee and interest.  The letter was sent by OP No.1 on 04.10.2019 stating that the interest on premium amount Rs.2,537/- and GST Rs.1,860/- was paid by the complainant.  Similarly, the complainant was to be called upon to pay the difference amount of Rs.6,117/- in respect of other policies to revive the policies and OPs have waived late fee Rs.1,207/-.  There is no deficiency.  The complainant without fulfilling the terms and conditions and without payment of GST on difference amount, has filed this complaint which is not maintainable.

6. The complainant has filed the affidavit evidence and relied on 18 documents.  The affidavit evidence of Manager of OPs has been filed.  Even though oral arguments is not advanced.  We perused the written arguments of both the parties.

7. The following points arise for our consideration are:-

1.  Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service on the part of OPs?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

8. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point Nos.1 and 2:  In the negative.

      Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

9. Point Nos.1 and 2:  Even though both the parties have filed their affidavit evidence in support of their respective contention raised in complaint and version.  It is relevant to refer the admitted facts.
10. The complainant being the Government Employee has taken  first policy NO.616806290 for sum assured amount of Rs.2,00,000/- commencing from 17.10.2012 with a monthly premium of Rs.1,249/- from OP No.1.  This policy will be matured on 17.09.2028.
11. Similarly, the complainant has taken two more policies from OP No.2 w.e.f. 06.01.2018 under policy No.617837615 and 617837616 for sum assured amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- respectively.  Even though, the complainant alleges and reiterated in affidavit evidence that the premium of these two policies are Rs.1,984/- and Rs.2,310/- respectively.  The two receipts produced by the complainant are Annexure-E and Annexure-H in respect of these two policies indicates that the complainant not only paid premium amount of Rs.1,984/- and Rs.2,310/-, but he has also paid GST of Rs.89.5 and Rs.104/- per month respectively.  So far payment of premium of first policy w.e.f.17.10.2012 is concerned is not applicable for payment of GST.  Annexure-C indicates that the complainant use to pay premium of Rs.1,249/- in respect of first policy through his bank account by adopting ECS mode.  He has paid this premium up to 28.06.2018.  Annexure-D and Annexure-G are the subsequent two policies taken on 06.01.2018.  Even though premium amount of these two policies is Rs.1,984/- and Rs.2,310/-.  But, Annexure-E and Annexure-H indicate payment of GST on premium of these two policies at Rs.89.5 and Rs.104/-.
12. The complainant has produced Annexure-F pay slip showing deduction of premium of all three policies at the rate of Rs.1,249/-, Rs.1,984/- and Rs.2,310/-.  But, neither GST has been deducted nor complainant has paid GST on two policies bearing Nos.617837615 and 617837616 w.e.f April, 2018.
13. The complainant has made number of correspondence with OPs as per Annexure-J to Annexure-P.  Whereas the OP No.1 issued a letter dated 04.10.2019 stating that GST for the period from April 2018 to April 2019 on these two policies to the tune of Rs.4,819/- not paid. OP No.2 has issued Annexure-T letter with regard to revival of first policy No.616806290 from ECS mode convert to salary scheme and called upon the complainant to furnish declaration on good health form No.80 and remittance of Rs.6,117/-.  The complainant without payment of GST on two polices taken in the year 2018 and without submitting required documents and payment of the amount in respect of first policy, blamed the OPs that OPs have committed deficiency of service.  Infact, the complainant himself has not complied legal request of the OPs made under Annexure-R dated 04.10.2019 and Annexure-T dated 22.10.2019, has approached this Commission for untenable reliefs.  Absolutely, there is no deficiency of service.
14. The complainant seeks refund of premium collected on three policies or direct the OPs to pay the entire policy matured amount. As indicated in the preceding paragraph, first policy will be matured on 17.09.2018, 2^nd policy will be matured on 06.01.2038 and last policy will be matured on 06.01.2039.  Therefore, complainant is not entitled to alternative prayer for payment of matured amount before maturity date.  When the complainant has failed to prove deficiency of service and when the complainant himself has not complied the legal request of the OPs under letters dated 04.10.2019 and 22.10.2019, he has not right in stating that there is a deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  All the contentions of the complainant are not tenable.
15. GST is made applicable from 1^st April, 2017.  Only following policies are exempted from payment of GST namely:-

1. Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana,
2. Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana,
3. Pradhan Mantri Vaya Vandan Yojana,
4. Janashree Bima Yojana (JBY),
5. Aam Aadmi Bima Yojana (AABY),
6. Varishtha Pension Bima Yogana
7. life micro-insurance product as approved by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) having maximum cover of Rs.50,000
8. Any other insurance scheme of the State Government.

16. It is not the case of the complainant that his last two policies fall under above eight policies which are exempted from payment of GST.  Under such circumstances, we answer these two points against the complainant.
17. Point No.3:- Having regard to the discussion made in the preceding paragraph and after assessing the evidence, we are of the considered opinion that complaint requires to be dismissed.  We proceed to pass the following    

  O R D E R

1. The complaint is dismissed.
2. No costs.  
3. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 2^nd day of February, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant are as follows