BEFORE THE  DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;  DHARWAD.

DATE: 23^rd July 2015         

PRESENT:

1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha       : President

2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi             : Member 

Complaint No.:  87/2015

Complainant/s:

Shridhar S/o.Ramachandra Tadas, Age: 56 years, Occ: Pensioner, R/o.H.No.23, 2^nd Cross, Sanmathi Nagar, Kelageri Road, Dharwad.

        (By Sri.S.A.Mullur, Adv.)

v/s

Respondent/s:

1. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, College Road, Post Box No.14, Dharwad.

2. The Manager, (JD & JA) Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jeevan Mangal Zonal Marketing Unit, No.14, Residency Road, Bangalore 25.

(By Sri.M.G.Gadgoli, Adv.)

O R D E R

By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.

1.     The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to pay Rs.1813/- with interest @18% P.A. from the date of investing, to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation, to pay Rs.2000/- towards cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.     The case of the complainant is that, complainant had obtained Jeevan Suraksha policy bearing no.633208936 by paying single premium Rs.10000/- to be paid Rs.36258/- at the time of vesting payable on annuity. The respondent issued  notice to complainant on 20.03.2014 same was served on 26.03.2014 intimating the vesting of the said policy on 15.03.2014 for annuity payment and annuity will be paid periodically. Immediately after receipt of the notice complainant called the respondent and told, he received notice after vesting period of 15.03.2014. Hence, complainant could not opt for sum assured along with accrued benefits and thereby he lost Rs.1813/- towards surrender value as the complainant had surrendered the bond for lumpsum payment as he was in need of the money to make the expenses of the operation at the instance of the respondent. Hence, complainant subjected to financial loss, harassment and mental agony at the instance of respondent which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, complainant got issued notice on 29.11.2014 to pay the deducted amount Rs.1813/- along with interest @12%. Through reply dtd.04.12.2014 the respondent said, the said amount cannot be refundable. Hence, the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.

3.     In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondents appeared and filed the written version in detail denying and disputing the complaint averments. Further the respondents taken contention that the very complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious in all its material particulars the complaint as brought is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent and prays for dismissal of the complaint. While the respondent admits issuance of the policy and maturity amount while the respondent taken contention that, as the complainant desired to have lumpsum amount and as per requisition and undertaking letter given by the complainant the respondent settled the claim as per clause.6 of the policy as such there is no deficiency in service as alleged and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit, relied on documents.  Heard. Perused the records.

Finding on points is as under.

1. Negative 
2. Negative
3. As per order

Reasons

Points 1 and 2

5.     On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact,  issuance of the policy and the said policy was vested for payment of annuity.

6.     Now the question to be determined is, whether deduction of the surrender value by the respondent amounts to a deficiency in service, if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled.

7.     On perusal of documents Ex.R3, R4, R5 it is evident that complainant approached the respondent and submits requisition for lumpsum payment by surrendering the policy. As contended by the complainant on perusal of Ex.R10 policy bond Clause.6 guaranteed surrender value it is evident that in the event of surrender of the policy the respondent is at discretion to deduct the surrender value after the amount payable. Further perusal of the document relied by both complainant and respondent Ex.C2 and Ex.R3 it is further fortify that the complainant himself submits option to receive the amount in lump sum by surrendering the policy. Ex.R5, R6, R7 and R8 reveals that the payment was made under RTGS and the said amount is credited to the account of complainant and complainant has received the amount. However looking into the evidence placed it is evident that only after surrender of the policy of annuity policy the respondent deducted the amount as per Clause.6 of the policy and as such the respondent has not committed any deficiency in service as alleged. Interalia complainant failed to establish case of deficiency in service against respondent. Hence, complainant is not entitled for any relief.

8.     In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 in negative.

9.     Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following 

Order

        Complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 23^rd day of July 2015)

(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi)                                      (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)

Member                                                           President

Dist.Consumer Forum                                    Dist.Consumer Forum

MSR