IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 30th day of March, 2016
Filed on 15.01.2015
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.18/2015
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Annie Varghese 1. The Branch Manager
Panackal, CMC – 33 LIC of India, Cherthala Branch
Cherthala Office, Municipal Shopping
Complex, Cherthala – 688 524
2. The Zonal Manager, IPC Cell
LIC of India, Zonal Office
LIC Building, Anna Salai
Chennai – 2
(By Adv. P.K. Mathew – for
opposite parties 1 and 2)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant had taken a policy bearing No.779073204 under the New Jeevan Ashay VI on 27.9.2012 from the opposite party. While taking the policy she was told by the Development Officer of the opposite party that the policy could be surrendered when there is any health problems. In June, 2014 complainant sustained chest pain and she was advised to take Angioplasty. Hence she wants to withdraw the amount from the policy. But her claim was rejected by the opposite party by stating the Corporation withdrew the facility of surrender through Circular dated 1.12.2012. Alleging deficiency in service the complaint is filed, directing the opposite parties to return the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:-
The opposite party had issued a policy bearing No. 779073204 under the New Jeevan Akshya VI on 27.9.2012. She has exercised the pension Option “F”, that is, annuity for life with return of purchase price on yearly basis. The New Jeevan Akshya VI (Plan 189-Immediate annuity policy) was introduced on 10.9.2007. At the time of introduction of this annuity plan, the policy condition did not permit surrender of the policy after vesting. The privilege of surrender was subsequently allowed to this policy vide a letter dated 7.5.2010 only to a certain extent. This circular allowed only surrender of policy wherein the annuitant has exercised pension Option “F”. Such a decision was taken by the LIC of India on humanitarian consideration. Subsequently the Corporation issued a Circular on 1.12.2012 withdrawing this facility of surrender of immediate annuity policies which was earlier offered vide letter dated 13.1.2007 and 7.5.2010 to annuity policies under New LIC Jeevan Akshaya VI (Plan-189) with option “F” issued w.e.f. 16.5.2012 and onwards. The complainant would have been eligible for surrender of said policy had the date of their commencing been prior to 16.5.2012. There is no deficiency in service or dereliction of duty on the part of the opposite parties.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced marked as Ext.A1to A4. The agent of LIC was examined as PW2. Opposite party produced one document which marked as Exts.B1. No oral evidence from the side of the opposite party.
5. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
6. It is an admitted fact that the opposite party issued a policy bearing registration No. 779073204 under New Jeevan Akshay VI on 26.9.2012. According to the complainant, she had taken the said policy after remitting Rs.2,50,000/-. Ext.A1 is the policy issued by the opposite parties. It shows that the purchase price of the policy is Rs.2,43,000/- and amount of annuity installment is Rs.17,083/-. According to the complainant while taking the policy she was told by the officers that whenever there is any health problems arises she can withdraw the amount that she remitted. The opposite party filed version, admitting that t the time of introduction of the New Jeevan Akshay VI annuity plan the policy condition did not permit surrender of the policy after vesting. But the privilege of surrender was subsequently allowed vide a letter dated 7.5.2010 only to a certain extent.
As per the said circular, the surrender of policy was allowed wherein the annuitant has exercised pension option “F”. According to the opposite party subsequently they issued a Circular dated 1.12.2012 withdrawing the said facility of surrender w.e.f. 16.5.2012 onwards. In the instant case, it is admitted that complainant has exercised the pension option “F”. So it is clear that while she taking the policy there is privilege of surrender wherein the annuitant has exercised pension option “F”. The main allegation of the complainant is that in June, 2014 she sustained chest pain and the doctor advised to do Angioplasty and hence she approached the opposite party to withdraw the amount that she remitted, but she was not allowed to withdraw the amount by stating that as per the Circular dated 1.12.2012 the facility of surrender was withdrawn. Ext.A2 is the letter dated 12.7.2014 issued by the opposite party denying the claim of the complainant. Ext.A3 is the Circular dated 1.12.2012. While cross examining the complainant, she deposed that, “ ” From the evidence adduced by the complainant, it is clear that she has taken the policy under the belief that she can surrender whenever there is any health problems. The opposite party has no case that while issuing the Circular dated 1.12.2012 they intimated the complainant about the changes that they have made in the policy which the complainant had taken. So it is an admitted fact that the opposite parties unilaterally altered the terms and conditions of the policy. In a decision reported in 2015 Volume IV page No.609 Hon’ble National Commission held that the opposite party should have given a notice to the complainant and should have asked their options whether they wanted to continue or wanted to quit. In the light of the above said decision squarely applicable in this case. In the light of the above said discussion we are of opinion that the opposite party committed deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the complainant.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand only) with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the complaint (15.1.2015) till realization to the complainant. Since the primary relief is granted, further relief for compensation and costs not allowed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of March, 2016.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Annie Varghese (Witness)
PW2 - R. Premakumari (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Policy schedule (Witness)
Ext.A2 - Letter dated 12.7.2014
Ext.A3 - Copy of the letter dated 1.12.2012
Ext.A4 - Certificate dated 20.6.2014
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Policy schedule
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/- Compared by:-
