DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
…………………
Presents:-
- Sri A.K.Purohit, President.
- Smt. S.Rath, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 28th day of November 2017.
C.C.No.18 of 2017.
Ramesh Chandra Sahu, age-63 years son of late Dasarathi Sahu,
Resident of C/O.S.B.Nepak, Near CivilCourt, Patnagarh Road,
Bolangir, At present Flat No.P-03,Netajee Subash Enclave,Gadakana,
P.O-Manheswar, Bhubaneswar-751017, Dist-Khurda.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.The Chief Manager LIC of IndiaBolangir Branch,
At-Santipada,Bolangir Town, P.O/P.S & Dist- Bolangir.
2.The Manager, CRM,LIC of India,Sambalpur Divisional Office,
Jeevan Prakash, Ainthapali, Sambalpur-768004.
3,Ashutosh Panigrahi s/o Not known, At-Koshala Nagar,
Near Sailashree Palace, Gate No.2, Bolangir Town,
P.O/P.S & Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Opp.Parties.
Adv. for the complainant- Sri R.K.Moharana. & Smt. A.Jena.
Adv. for the O.Ps 1 & 2 - Sri S.S.Mishra & Associates.
Adv. for the O.P.No.3 - None.
Date of filing of the case-22.04.2017
Date of order -28.11.2017
JUDGMENT.
Sri A.K.Purohit, President.
The complainant has preferred this case alleging deficiency in life Insurance Service. The complainant as per the advise of O.P.No.3 a Insurance Agent, had taken two LIC’s Jeevan Saral Policy vide Policy No.593675920 on dt.19.5.2009 and policy No.593675712 on dt. 11.5.2009. Both the policy is for a period of 10 years and the assured amount is Rs 10,00,000/- each. The yearly premiums payable in both the policy is Rs 48,040/- each. The proposal of the complainant is duly accepted by the O.Ps and accordingly the complainant had paid yearly premium up to 5th years and thereafter due to unavoidable circumstances the complainant had not able to pay the subsequent premiums and had discontinued the policies. The complainant alleges that although the terms and conditions of the policy provides for payment of surrender values, the O.Ps did not pay the same without any reasons. Hence the complaint.
2 . Although notice has been served on O.P.No.3, neither he appeared nor proceeded with the hearing of the case. The O.Ps 1 & 2 contested the case by filing their written version jointly. In their written version both the O.Ps have admitted the acceptance of the insurance proposal and also admitted the payment of premiums by the complainant for 5 consecutive years. The O.Ps have averred that after discontinuance of payment of premium amount the complainant had never applied for surrender value after depositing the bonds. The O.Ps have claimed no deficiency in service on their part and claim for dismissal of the case.
3 . Heard both the parties. Perused the materials available on record. The learned advocate for the complainant submitted that, since there is provision for payment of surrender value, the non consideration of the same by the O.Ps amounts to deficiency in service. On the other hand the learned advocate for the O.Ps submitted that the complainant had never applied for surrender value and as and when the same will be applied by the complainant the same will be considered as per the terms and conditions of the policy.
4 . Perused the documentary evidence available on record. It is an admitted fact that, the complainant had taken two Jeevan Saral policy from the O.Ps, which is valid for a ;period of 10 years and the assured amount is Rs 10,00,000/- in both the policy. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant had paid the premium amount of Rs 48,040/- each, for a period of 5 years in both the policy. With these admitted fact the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the surrender value or not.
5. Perused the terms and conditions of the policy. In para-7 of the condition it has been mentioned that, the policy can be surrendered after it has been in force for at least full 3 years. In the same para there is condition for guaranteed surrender value and special surrender value. Therefore as the said terms and conditions the complainant is entitled to the surrender value after completing at least full 3 years. In this case the complainant had paid the yearly premium up to 5 years and hence the policy is in force till payment of premium. The argument advanced by the learned advocate for the O.Ps cannot be accepted for the simple reason that, once the complainant had stopped payment of premium the policy deems to have been discontinued and it is presumed that the policy bond has been surrendered. There is also no evidence on behalf of the O.Ps that they have intimated the complainant regarding the discontinuance of the policy and for further payment of the premium amount. The O.Ps have also not produced any evidence either by way of affidavit or otherwise to show that, the complainant had never approached for surrender4 value. Since the policy permits for surrender value, non consideration of the same by the O.Ps 1 and 2 holding the sum assured of the policies Rs 10,00,000/- each, amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
6. It is a common practice that the insurance company is dealing his business through agent and after fulfilling their target the agents are not coming to the customer for their help in making payment of premium and in case of surrendering the policy bond. In this case there is no evidence available on record to show that the O.P.3 has advised the complainant regarding deposit of policy bond. The O.P.3 has also not advised to the complainant nor helped the complainant for claiming the surrender value. This conduct of the O.P.3 as agent amounts to deficiency in service on his part. Hence ordered.
ORDER.
The O.Ps No.1 and 2 are directed to pay the proportionate surrender value holding the sum assured Rs 10,00,000/- each vide policy No.593675920 and 593675712 with interest @ 9% per annum from 16.08.2014 till payment along with other benefits under the policies to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
The O.P.No.3 is directed to pay Rs 10,000/- towards compensation to the complainant for his negligent act within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Further all the O.Ps are directed to pay Rs 1,000/- towards cost to the complainant within the aforesaid time.
Accordingly the case is disposed off.
Order pronounced in open forum this the 28th day of November 2017.
(S.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
