Judgment & Order dt. 25.05.2017
Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that on 28.3.2009, he purchased one Jeevan Madhur Policy of LICI from Jeevan Madhur Plan office of Raiganj, North Dinajpur, on condition that he would continue to pay Rs.100/- per month, month by month as premium for 15 years. The policy is sponsored by OP Nos. 1 &2 on behalf of LICI and OP No.3 is the micro insurance agent of OP Nos. 1 & 2, whose duty is inter alia to collect the premiums from the policyholders. The policy number of the complainant is 455634899 dt. 28.3.2009. 58 numbers of instalments were paid by the complainant upto October, 2013. Thereafter, on 27.5.2014, he surrendered the policy and claimed the surrendered value thereof. The OP-1 informed the complainant that he was entitled to get Rs.3,900/- and LICI would pay it. Then, by a letter dt. 16.3.2015, the LICI informed the complainant that Rs.2,458/- was paid on 20.5.2014 to him through NEFT to his UBI A/c. Now, the complainant has claimed that nothing has been paid to him by the OP Nos. 1 & 2 and that the said OPs be directed to make payment of Rs.5,800/- as paid up premiums of him along with a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation and interest @ 10.2% per month from 27.5.2014 i.e. the date on which the policy was surrendered by him. Hence, this case.
The OP Nos. 1 & 2 have been contesting the case by filing written statement wherein it is contended inter alia that Jeevan Madhur Plan office at Raiganj, was collecting office at the relevant time and now it is OP-3 who is collecting agent under the aforesaid policy. Head Office of Jeevan Madhur Plan was headed by Branch Manager at Raiganj, namely, Tutul Sarkar who collected the premium from the policyholders and did not deposit the same in the office of OP-1. So, Civil and Criminal case has been instituted against the said Tultul Sarkar. OP-1 admits, however, that 39 number of premium of Rs.100/- have only been received in his office and that a sum of Rs.2,458/- being surrendered value on 20.6.2014 has been paid to the complainant through NEFT system. According to them, the OPs are not liable to make any further payment to the complainant and that they have not committed any act of negligence or deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. They have prayed for dismissal of the complaint in limini.
OP-3 has also filed a written statement contending inter alia that he joined the office of Jeevan Madhur policy at Balurghat on 27.3.2013 and he has not collected any premium from the complainant. According to him, the complainant paid all premiums to one Tumpa Mahanta (Agent Code No.360) up to 25.10.2013 who remitted all the collections to Jeevan Madhur Plan office at Raiganj. So, to him, he is not at all liable to the complainant and that there is no deficiency in service on his part.
Upon the averments of both the parties the following issues are formulated for consideration in the case.
ISSUES
- Have the OPs committed deficiency in service by not settling the complainant’s claim for surrender value in time?
- Is the complainant entitled to surrender value and if so, to what extent?
- Is the complainant entitled to get compensation as claimed for?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
The complainant has filed an affidavit-in-chief and has also got himself cross examined as PW-1. The documents admitted in evidence are marked as Ext. Nos.1, 2-series, 3, 4, 5-(2 pages), 6-(2 pages) and 7 respectively, as detailed in list of documents kept in the record. No evidence is led on behalf of the OPs. On behalf of the OPs, one calculation sheet has been filed and the same is marked as Ext. No. ‘A’ also detailed in the list of documents kept in the record.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Issue Nos.1, 2 & 3:
All issues are taken up for discussion at a time for the sake of convenience. Ld. Lawyer appearing for OP No. 1 has argued that the insurance company i.e. LICI has received only 39 premiums of Rs.100/- each out of 58 premiums as claimed to have been deposited by the complainant. He further contains that the complainant surrendered his policy and therefore, he is entitled to get surrender value of his policy. The surrender value of his policy was calculated to be Rs.2,458/- and the said amount has also been paid to the complainant on 20.6.2014 to his UBI A/c through NEFT. It is further also argued by Ld. Lawyer appearing for OP No. 1 that the agent which was engaged for collecting the premium from the complainant, did not deposit some premiums collected from the complainant with the insurance company i.e. OP No.1 and therefore insurance company i.e. OP-1 is not liable to make payment of those amounts. According to him, the insurance company i.e. OP No. 1 has received 39 premiums only from the complainant and they have made payment of the surrender value to the complainant according to terms of the agreement. Ld. Lawyer appearing for the OP No. 3 has contended that he was inducted to the plan as micro insurance agent only on 27.3.2013 and therefore, is not liable to make any payment to the complainant, because he did not receive payment of any premium from the complainant.
Ld. Lawyer appearing for the complainant has contended that he made payment of 56 premiums to OP No. 1 through agent having Code No.360 and that he has also got receipts thereof. To him, it is the OP No. 1 i.e. insurance company is liable for all such payments of the complainant and he cannot escape his liability for negligence of his agent i.e. OP No. 3 or any one else, acting on his behalf.
Heard the submissions of the Ld. Lawyers appearing for both the parties. Considered all these. Perused the complaint and written version on behalf of OPs along with the documents filed herewith. Also considered all these.
It has been contended on behalf of insurance company i.e. OP Nos. 1 & 2 that they received only 39 premiums out of 58 premiums from the complainant and that they are liable for 39 premiums only which they have received. This contention of the said OPs appears to be not acceptable. Because, we know very well that the principal is always liable for any act of his agent. OP No. 3 is undisputedly the collecting agent of OP Nos.1 & 2 and therefore, it will be OP Nos. 1 & 2 who will be responsible for any negligence or unlawful act of their agent. In the instant case, it is undisputed that the complainant purchased one Jeevan Madhur Plan of OP No. 1 & 2. The complainant has also filed some receipts which goes to establish that he had made payment of premiums to the insurance company. The last of such receipts is marked as Ext.2/51 and it goes to establish that 56 premiums have been paid by the complainant to the insurance company. So, in the circumstances, the OP No. 1 & 2 i.e. insurance company will not be allowed to deny that they did receive all the premiums paid and to assert that they received only 39 premiums from the complainant. As OP No. 1 & 2 are principals, and as the complainant has filed proper receipts for payment of premiums, it is held by us that the OP No. 1 & 2 have received the payment for 56 premiums from the complainant.
Now to see what can be surrender value of the policy the complainant is entitled to get. On behalf of the insurance company, OP No. 1 & 2 have filed a calculation sheet which is marked ad Ext. ‘A’. It has been shown in the Ext. ‘A’ that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.2,458/- for paid up premium of 40 installments. According to OP No. 1 & 2, the surrender value of Rs.2,458/- has been paid to the account of the complainant through NEFT. The complainant has filed a statement of the relevant portion of his UBI account and the same is marked as Ext.6. On perusal of Ext.6 it is found that no amount of Rs.2,458/- has been credited to the UBI A/c of the complainant on 20.6.2014. In the circumstances, we feel no hesitation to hold that no amount as alleged by the OP No. 1 & 2 has been credited to the account of the complainant.
Then comes the question as to what is the amount of surrender value to which the complainant is entitled. The complainant has paid 56 installments out of 180 installments. Following the principle on which surrender value has been calculated by OP Nos. 1 & 2, vide Ext. ‘A’, the surrender value of the complainant on the basis of 56 installments is calculated to be Rs.3,099/- including the Bonus of Rs.1,524/- as is given by the OP Nos. 1 & 2 in Ext. ‘A’. The complainant is entitled to get this amount from the OP Nos. 1 & 2. The complainant has alleged that the OP Nos. 1 & 2 are guilty of deficiency in service in as much as they have delayed to settle the surrender value of his policy in time. The policy was surrendered by the complainant on 27.5.2014 and the surrender value is yet to be paid to the complainant. This is certainly gross negligence on the part of OP Nos. 1 & 2 and the complainant has suffered a lot for such negligent act of them. He i.e. the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the OP No. 1 & 2 for their negligent act for not making payment of surrender value to the complainant in time and also for faulty determination of his claim.
Upon what have been discussed above it appears that the complainant is entitled to get an order for payment of surrender value of his policy to him and also for compensation and the order is passed accordingly as hereunder. In the result, the case succeeds in part.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest in part against the OP Nos. 1 & 2 with costs and dismissed on contest against the OP No. 3 without costs. The cost of proceedings is assessed at Rs.2,000/-
The OP Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to make payment of surrender value of policy of the complainant amounting to Rs.3,099/- and also a sum of Rs.2,000/- as compensation along with a further sum of Rs.2,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant within a month of the date of this order, failing which the surrender value and compensation amount will bear interest @ 12% p.a. till its full realization.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost at once to the parties concerned.
