IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KOLLAM

Dated this the    27^th  Day of  December  2021

  Present: -  Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President

Smt.S.Sandhya Rani, Bsc, L.L.B,Member

                   Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

                                                    CC.276/15

G.Jacob                                                       :         Complainant

S/o Geevarghese

Kochumattathu Veedu

Near CVKMHSS

Thekkemuri,East Kallada P.O

Kollam-691502.

[By Adv.Maruthadi.R.Sreeraj]

V/s

1. Divisional Manager                            :         Opposite parties

          Life Insurance Corporation ofIndia

          Thiruvananthapuram Division

         Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The Branch Manager

         LIC of India

        Kollam City Branch Office-1

        P.B.No.150, Jeevan Jyothy

        Residency road, Kollam-691001.

        [By Adv.K.Jayakrishnan]

3. P.Jacob

         LIC Agent

         Agent code:2892787

        Chittumala, Kizhakke Kallada P.O

         Kollam-691502.

          [By Adv.Poul Antony]

FINAL    ORDER

E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , B.A, LL.M, President

          This is a case based on a consumer complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

          The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

          The complainant availed a medical insurance policy by name Jeevan Surabhi/Jeevan Sanjay issued by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties through the 3^rd opposite party who is the authorized agent of 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.  The policy number is 782423718 and the sum assured is Rs.1,75,000/-.  The commencement of the policy was 28.03.2002 and the maturity date is 28.03.2022.  The complainant has to pay quarterly premium @ Rs.3364/-.  While the 3^rd opposite party canvassing the policy  made the complainant to believe the benefits of the policy that also assured that he will take care of all the requirements needed for the smooth running of the policy and there is no need to approach the other opposite parties for the same.  The 3^rd opposite party agreed to collect the amount from the policy holder on daily basis by keeping a kutti book for the purpose instead of paying the quarterly premium as a lump sum.  By believing the above representations made by the 3^rd opposite party the complainant joined another policy having quarterly premium of Rs.449/- and the complainant used to pay daily collections and complete the premium amount before the date of paying the premium.  The 3^rd opposite party also used to collect premium receipts as and when the quarterly premium is paid from the amount collected from the complainant.  But he had entered only a few of such receipts to the complainant.  However the 3^rd opposite party has continuously entered all the amount  daily collected from the complainant in the kutti book kept for the same by inserting the date against each days collection.  However the 3^rd opposite party has not handed over the policy certificated or policy conditions.  He has only given the name of the policy by name Jeevan Surabhi/Jeevan Sanjay and its number 782423718, commencement date and maturity date.  While so during the year 2010 the complainant sustained heart diseases and was admitted at the hospital for treatment and that fact was intimated to the opposite party then and there.  But the 3^rd opposite party informed the complainant that as per the terms of the policy the complainant will not get any benefit for the treatment of the said diseases and if the complainant continuous to pay policy premium he will get all the medical benefits on the coming years.  The complainant believed the above representation and also continued to pay the premium amount.  While so the complainant again sustained  heart disease during the year 2013 and underwent treatment.  During this time also the 3^rd opposite party has not caused to get any treatment benefit from the other opposite parties.  However he continued to receive the daily collections and entering into the kutti book.  The complainant continue to pay the premium till 11.11.2014 and till that date the 3^rd opposite party entered details of the amount collected in the said kutti book.

          However the 3^rd opposite party has not given any receipts evidencing the payment of premium from June 2013 onwards and when it was asked the 3^rd opposite party evaded by stating lame excused and also told him that all the receipts will be given together and that the LIC has increased the premium amount  to Rs.5000/- and if the premium is paid at the increased rate then only 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties would issue receipts.  Accordingly on 30.09.2014 the complainant paid Rs.5000/- to the 3^rd opposite party and by receiving that amount he entered into that fact in the kutti book.  Apart from that the complainant has also signed certain forms brought by the 3^rd opposite party.  Thereafter also the complainant continued to pay the policy amount.  But inspite of repeated request the 3^rd opposite party has not given the receipts evidencing the payment of policy premium.  The 3^rd opposite party has also not accepted premium amount from 11.11.2014 onwards and when enquired about the non acceptance of the premium amount he again evaded by stating false and frivolous reasons.  Later the complainant directly approached the office of the 2^nd opposite party and on enquiry  the 2^nd opposite party has not divulged any information regarding the policy and send back the complainant by directing to approach the 3^rd opposite party agent through whom the complainant taken policy and need to appear at the office of the LIC and shall not cause disturbance to Opposite party No.1&2.

          In view of the suspicious behavior of the 3^rd opposite party and also in view of the above direction of the 2^nd opposite party the complainant felt more doubt and again approached the office of the 2^nd opposite party on 05.08.2015 and made a request to issue the policy details in writing for which the 2^nd opposite party has issued a printed letter on the very same day by stating the details regarding the policy and also regarding the default in payment  of policy premium by the 3^rd opposite party. On the next day the complainant filed an application under RTI to the 1^st opposite party stating with the details of policy to which the 1^st opposite party has sent a reply dated 17.08.2015 stating the policy details.  In the said policy details it is not seen stated whether there is any default in the payment of premium.  Later the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party along with kutti book and convincing the 2^nd opposite party that the 3^rd opposite party has been receiving premium continuously without any fault and he has endorsed that aspect in the kutti book.  But even after seeing the same the 2^nd opposite party has not issued any satisfactory reply to the complainant and also told that the complainant has deliberately defaulted in paying the policy premium and also directing him to renew the policy from the month of June 2013 if the complainant is ready and willing to pay the defaulted premium amount, its interest along with health declaration and medical reports and in such events opposite party No.1&2 will renew the policy if they are satisfied with the health declaration and medical report.

          If at all the complainant has failed to pay the policy premium  in time it is the duty of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party to intimate that fact directly to the complainant with a direction to review the policy.  But the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party have not issued any such direction.  According to the complainant the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party have been deliberately concealing the above fact to the complainant with a malafide intention to protect the interest of the 3^rd opposite party.  Therefore the opposite party No.1&2 have also connived with the illegal acts of the 3^rd opposite party in not paying the premium amount collected from the complainant and also in making default of the payment of premium and thereby the opposite parties have committed negligence, dereliction of duty, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  According to the complainant the above act of the opposite parties have caused much mental agony apart from financial loss and therefore the complainant is entitled to get Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony apart from getting back Rs.1,71,564/- collected by the 3^rd opposite party from the complainant  from March 2002 till November  2014 along with interest and costs Rs.10,000/-.

          All the three opposite parties resisted the complaint.  Opposite party No.1&2 filed a joint written version and 3^rd opposite party filed separate version.  However the following are the admitted facts in the above versions.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite party has issued Policy No.782423718 to the complainant.  It was money back policy with sum assured of Rs.1,75,000/-(Plan 75 policy).  The date of commencement and date of maturity of the policy is also admitted.  According to opposite party No.1&2 it is a 20 year policy and the premium @ Rs.3364/- is to be paid quarterly.  It is also admitted that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have appointed the 3^rd opposite party as the agent as per the guidelines of IRDA that  the 3^rd opposite party is having requisite qualifications  to act as LIC agent.  The complainant is having another policy with 2^nd opposite party branch of the LIC, the number of which is 781423910.  The quarterly premium of the 2^nd policy is Rs.449/- and the sum assured is Rs.25000/-.  This is also money back policy having a term of 20 years.  The date  of commencement of the 2^nd policy is 28.08.1996 and maturity date is 28.08.2016.  However it is contented that the LIC is not collecting premium on daily basis from the policy holders and it has provided facilities to remit the premium as per the policy conditions at any branch/LIC authorized collection centers by cash or cheque.  The 3^rd opposite party agent Sri.P.Jacob, Agency code No.2892787, Chittumala is one of the LIC authorized agent to collect premium as per the policy conditions on behalf of LIC and he has to give valid receipts of the customer or the remittance generated from LIC portal.  As per the records available with the LIC the 3^rd opposite party has not collected any premium from the policy holder towards the 1^st policy which are due from 06/2013 onwards.  Mode of collection of premium has been clearly shown in the policy document as quarterly and hence policy holder need to pay premium only on quarterly basis.  So the LIC is not responsible for the daily collection of premium from the policy holder. 

          Complainant had paid premium up to 03/2013 and the first unpaid due for his policy was 06/2013.  After that he has not paid any premium and the policy is in lapsed conditions from 06/2013 onwards. Both of the policies taken by the complainant are Money Back policies and not Medi claim policies. From the proposal form and policy documents it is clear that the policy asked for and granted was a money back policy.  No kind of medical reimbursement is available under the money back policies.  LIC has not received any premium after 03/2013 and the first unpaid premium due for the said policy is 06/2013.  For any payments were made to LIC valid receipts were issued for that payment.  As per the RTI Application dated 06.08.2015, the complainant asked for the copy of the policy document and the same was issued on 17.08.2015.  LIC is issuing default notices and lapse notices etc. in time for all the policies for default and lapse through Business post.  It is a computer generated notice and not written in the movement register of LIC with each policy numbers printed in the notice.  As per the contract of life insurance it is the duty of policy holder to keep policy in force by paying premium regularly.  There is no contractual obligation to remind the policy holders to remit premium as mentioned in the policy document.  This policy was lapsed due to the nonpayment of the premium in time by the policy holder.  This policy can be revived at any time by the policy holder but within 5 years from the due date of first unpaid premium by paying arrears of premium with interest and evidence of continued insurability satisfactory to the corporation.  Non receipt of lapse notice cannot be quoted as an excuse for nonpayment of premium and consequent lapsing of policy.

          In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,71,564/- along with interest as claimed in A relief?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- as prayed for B relief?
4. Relief and costs.

Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of  the oral evidence of PW1 to PW3 and Ext.P1 to P3 documents.   Evidence on the side of the opposite parties consists of the oral evidence of DW1&2 and Ext.D1 to D16 documents.

Both sides have filed notes of argument.

Heard both sides.

Point No.1 to 3

     For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these 3 points are considered together.  The following are the admitted rather undisputed facts in this case.  The complainant has availed insurance policy bearing No.782423718 from opposite party No.1&2 through the 3^rd opposite party LIC agent.  The policy is a 20 year Jeevan Surabhi/Jeevan Sanjay policy for Rs.1,75,000/-.  The date of commencement of the policy is 28.03.2002 and date of maturity is 28.02.2023.  Quarterly premium to be paid is Rs.3364/-.  The 3^rd opposite party is the authorized agent of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  Though the case of the complainant is that the policy name is Jeevan Surabhi/Jeevan Sanjay, the opposite party would allege that it is money back policy which plan 75 and term 20 years. Ext.P2/Ext.D7 policy certificate would support the contention of  opposite party No.1&2 that the policy issued to the complainant is money back policy with profits+ accrual benefit.

According to the opposite parties No.1&2 the complainant had paid premium up to 3/2013 and the 1^st unpaid due for his policy was 6/13.  After that he has not paid any premium and the policy is in lapsed condition from 06.03.2013 onwards.  It is further contented that the LIC has issued default notice, lapse notice in all times for all policy for default and lapse through business post.  The said notice is a computer generated one and not written in the movement register with each policy numbers printed in the notice.  But the complainant denied having received any such notice.  The opposite parties have not produced any documentary evidence to prove that they have issued any such notices.  As per the terms of the insurance contract it is the duty of the policy holder to keep the policy in force by paying the premium regularly.  According to the opposite parties there is no contractual obligation to remained the policy holders to remit the premium in time.  The lapsed policy can be revived at any time by the policy holder  but within 5 years from the due date of the 1^st unpaid premium by paying the arrears of premium with interest and evidence of continued insurability satisfactory to the corporation.  However in the case of complainants policy revival was declined in view of bad health condition of the complainant as he has been affected with diabetics, hypertension and coronary heart diseases etc.

 In view of the oral evidence of PW1&PW2 it is clear that the 3^rd opposite party has collected premium amount as daily collection and has been entering the same in Ext.P1&P3 kutti books.  But according to opposite party No.1&2 the insurance company has not authorized the 3^rd opposite party  to collect premium as  daily collection but only to collect quarterly premium and issue receipts at the same time and that the collection of premium on daily basis and entering into kutti book etc. are arrangement between 3^rd opposite party and policy holder for which LIC is not responsible nor liable.  The 3^rd opposite party would admit in his written version that he has been collecting premium as daily collection and maintaining kutti book etc. which was at the request of the complainant.  However the 3^rd opposite party when he was facing cross examination as DW2 attempted to deny the above admission in his written versio.  But DW2 would admit that  Znh-k-tam, BgvN-tbm, amktam Xcp¶ Bfp-I-fpsS amount hm§n receipt sImSp-¡m-dp-­v.  DW2 has also attempted to deny the case of the complainant that Sri. P.K.Rajn is the staff who has been deputed by him to make daily collection from the complainant and others.  But when PW1 was in the witness box  3^rd opposite party has no such case.  It is also brought out in evidence through PW1&PW2 that 3^rd opposite party has collected premium amount by deputing another agent as the complainant was ready and willing to give some amount daily. 

Even according to 3^rd opposite party has been managing 4 offices and employed 7 staffs for collecting premium amount from the policy holder and now he is having only 2 staffs.  It is also brought out in evidence through PW1 that as he has already taken insurance policy through the 3^rd opposite party right from the year 1996 and the opposite party has collected premium on daily collection mode and when the policy was matured he has received the amount and therefore he believed the 3^rd opposite party and again amenable for taking another insurance policy for a higher amount and before joining the policy the complainant has put his signature in certain forms on the basis of the trust on the 3^rd opposite party.

  PW1 has also  specifically denied the suggestion that the insurance was lapsed due to his own fault.  According to him he has been regularly paying the amount to the agent for paying the insurance premium and therefore it is not due to his fault the policy lapsed.  Ext.P1 is one such kutti book which would indicate the details of the amount entrusted to 3^rd opposite party right from 09.12.2013 the details of payment made prior to 09.12.2013 is with the 3^rd opposite party.  The person who received the amount and written in Ext.P1 kutti book is P.K.Rajan one of the Assistant  of the 3^rd opposite party.  According to the complainant he is entitled to receive back Rs.1,71,564/- from 3^rd opposite party as the amount collected by him which was paid towards payment of premium on different occasions.  In view of the materials discussed above it is cristal clear that the 3^rd opposite party used to collect the amount daily for payment for insurance premium by deputing his assistant/helper P.K.Rajan and Rs. 1,71,564/- so collected from the complainant is with the 3^rd opposite party. 

 Here in this case the 3^rd opposite party has admittedly made daily collections for the payment of premium after entering the same in kutti book the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party  also would admit that 3^rd opposite party used to make daily pirivu by deputing his Assistant.  But the LIC would content that the above act of  3^rd opposite party is in excess of the power given to the agent and it was on account of the agreement between the complainant and the 3^rd opposite party.  But the complainant has totally denied having entered into any such agreement with the 3^rd opposite party.  According to PW1  the 3^rd opposite party made the complainant  to believe that he would collect the amount daily from him and by believing the above representation,  he has taken policy for higher amount.  It is also brought out in evidence that the above daily collection was a common course of business trick by the 3^rd opposite party who is the agent of the LIC and he has successfully carried out the above business of daily collection from the policy holders even by operating 4 offices and 7 assistants/sub agents. As per the law of agency what is done by the agent is done on behalf of the principle unless and until such act is not prohibited by the principal.  The instructions contained in Ext.D2,D4,D5&D8 documents would not expressly prohibit the agent from collecting premium amount from the policy holder.  In fact the instructions contained in Ext.D4,D5 and D8 documents issued by opposite party No.1&2 would authorize the 3^rd opposite party to collect ordinary premium amount and renewal premium amount from the policy holders.   In the circumstances we are of the view that LIC who is the principal who deputed 3^rd opposite party as agent cannot escape from the liability of the above nonfeasance and malfeasance of their agent,  simply by stating that 3^rd opposite party has exceeded his authority and the daily collection was as per the agreement between the complainant and the 3^rd opposite party.

It is further to be pointed out that though the above misfeasance malfeasance and nonfeasance  of the 3^rd opposite party who is the agent of 1^st and 2^nd opposite party has been reported directly by the complainant, the 1^st and 2nd  opposite parties have not taken any action in the matter and simply ignored the grievance of the complainant by stating “ \n§Ä \n§-fpsS GPâns\ I­v Imc-y-§Ä At\-z-jn-¨m aXn.  GPâp aptJ-\-btà t]mfn-kn-bn tNÀ¶-Xv. Sn t]mfn-kn-bpsS FÃm D¯-c-hm-Zn-X-zhpw Sn GPân-\m-Wv.  \n§Ä Ft¸mgpw Cu hnhcw At\-z-jn-¡m\mbn  ChnsS h¶v R§sf _p²n-ap-«n-¡cpXv”. By stating that the agent(OP3) is having all responsibility regarding the policy canvassed by him would infact ratify each and every act done by 3^rd opposite party as an agent of  LIC.

PW1 has also sworn in paragraph No.7 of the proof affidavit that “ Rm³ IrXy-amb t]mfnkn  {]oanbw kwJy \ÂIp-Ibpw BbXv ssI¸-änb 3þmw FXnÀI£n  a\-]qÀÆw t]mfnkn {]oanbw AS¨ ckoXv \ÂIm-Xn-cn-¡p-Ibpw. 2þmw FXnÀI-£nbpw Sn bmsXm¶pw Xs¶ Ft¶mSv shfn-s¸-Sp-¯m-Xn-cn-¡p-Ibpw sNbvX-Xn-\m kwibw tXm¶nb Rm³ 05.08.15  2þmw FXnÀI-£n-bpsS B^o-kn-se¯n Sn t]mfn-kn-bpsS hni-Z-amb hnh-c-§Ä tcJm-aqew \ÂI-W-sa¶v Bh-i-y-s¸-«-Xn 05.08.15  Sn t]mfn-kn-bpsS hnh-c-§fpw t]mfnkn {]oanbw 3þmw FXnÀI£n apS¡w hcp-¯nb Xob-Xnbpw aäpw {]nâv sNbvX seäÀ  \ÂIn-bn-cp-¶-Xm-Wv.”

The above evidence of PW1 would strengthen the case of the complainant that he was not at fault and when we felt doubt regarding the nonpayment of the premium amount entrusted to the agent he being a prudent man rushed to the office of the 2^nd opposite party several occasions and even though he was quit from the office of the 2^nd opposite party with a direction to deal with the agent who alone is responsible for the policy as the policy was issued to the complainant through the said agent(OP3).  As the complainant was not satisfactory with the above reply he again went to the office of the 1^st  opposite party on 05.08.2015 and obtained Ext.P2 reply containing the details of his policy.

     The above aspects averred  in the complaint as well as sworn in paragraph 7 of the proof  affidavit filed by PW1 would clearly establish that the 2^nd opposite party has made the complainant to believe that what is done by the 3^rd opposite party who is the agent of LIC is on behalf of the LIC and if the above act was against the permissible limit of the authority of the agent, they would have conduct an enquiry into the matter and would have taken action against the agent immediately on knowing the grievance expressed by the complainant.  The above averments in the affidavit of PW1 remains unchallenged, though PW1 was subjected to severe cross examination.  In fact the oral evidence of DW1 who is Manager of (L&HPF) LIC of India Divisional Office, Pattom would indicate that the LIC was aware of the premium collection made by 3^rd opposite party from the policy holders.  In the circumstances the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are now not expected to turn round and say that what is done by the agent is in excess of the authority conferred on the agent and therefore the LIC is not responsible for the misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance of the 3^rd opposite party agent.

It is further to be pointed out that in paragraph 6 of the version filed by 3^rd opposite party it is stated Bfp-I-fpsS Bh-i-y-{]-Imcw ssZ\w-Zn\w Iptd-sÈbmbn 3þmw FXnÀI£n Sn Bfp-I-fp-sS-b-Sp-¯p-\n¶pw Ah-c-h-cpsS Ign-hn-\-\p-k-cn¨v \ÂIp¶ XpI tiJ-cn¨v IrXy-X-tbmsS {]oanbw AS-¨p-h-cp-¶-Xm-Wv.  Sn tkh\w lÀPn-¡m-c\v IqSn \ÂI-W-sa¶v Bh-i-y-s¸-«-Xnsâ ASn-Øm-\-¯n Snbm³ ssIh-i¯p \n¶pw ta coXn-bn {]oanbw XpI ssI¸än  IrXy-amb Adn-bn¸v \ÂIn-bn-cp-¶-Xp-am-Wv.  and also in paragraph 7 it is stated that lÀPn-¡m-c-\n \n¶pw ]Ww ssI¸-äp¶ kabw 3þmw FXnÀI£n `mK-¯p-\n¶pw tcJ-s¸-Sp¯n \ÂIp¶ _p¡v  ]cn-tim-[n-¨m \nÊw-ibw a\-Ên-em-¡m³ km[n-¡p-¶-Xm-Wv. 

In view of the above admission it is cristal clear that the 3^rd opposite party used to make daily collection and that fact was endorsed in the book kept for that purpose (kutti book).  It is further to be pointed out that as per the endorsement in Ext.P1 kutti book an amount of  Rs.17405/- collected from the complainant is with the 3^rd opposite party as on 11.11.2014.  But the premium was not seen paid from 6/2013 onwards.  If at all the complainant or 3^rd opposite party failed to pay the premium amount in time for any reason and the policy happened to be lapsed, 3^rd opposite party could have paid the dues from out of Rs.17405/- kept with him even after obtaining Ext.D13 revival quotation dated 12.09.2015.  But 3^rd opposite party has miserably failed to do so though he is specifically authorized to receive and remit renewal premium from the policy holders and remit the same in the LIC office as per Ext.D4,D5&D8 documents.  It is true that as per Ext.D14&D15 receipts the 3^rd opposite party has paid premium in policy No.78142310 on 06.02.2016 and 11.05.2016 which are much after filing the present complaint against opposite parties.  The above act would not absolve the liability of the 3^rd opposite party in not paying premium due on Ext.D7 policy in time or not renewing the lapsed policy as per the rules of LIC.  It is true that PW3, the assistant of the 3^rd opposite party denied having collected any premium for and on behalf of the 3^rd opposite party the admission the 3^rd opposite party in paragraph 6 of his version is more than sufficient to prove that he had collected amount from the complainant on daily collection and endorsed that fact in the book kept for that purpose.  It is further to be pointed out that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party could not produce any documentary evidence to prove that they have issued any notice regarding the arrears of policy premium nor instructed the complainant to renew the policy as per rules of LIC.  However the 2^nd opposite party has seen issued Ext.P13 quotation to 3^rd opposite party and not given  a copy  of the same to the complainant.  In the circumstances the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant that there is collusion between LIC represented by opposite party No.1&2 and 3^rd opposite party in the entire episode. 

The averments in the complaint coupled with the oral evidence of PW1&2 and the admission of 3^rd opposite party in his version would clearly indicate that the 3^rd opposite party has collected Rs.1,71,564/- directly and through P.K.Rajan his assistant including Rs.2250/- paid prior to 09.12.2013.  The oral evidence of PW1,PW2 and Ext.P1 kutti book would indicate that the assistant deputed by the 3^rd opposite party had collected various amounts from the complainant till the month of November 2014 would further indicate that the 3^rd opposite party being the agent of  LIC and has been much trusted and believed by the complainant but the 3^rd opposite party or his assistant Sri.Rajan has defalcated the amount obtained from the complainant by making deliberate default in paying the insurance premium and thereby Ext.D7 insurance policy issued in the name of the complainant happened to be lapsed w.e.f 6/2013 onwards due to no fault of the complainant. 

On evaluating the entire materials available on record we come to the conclusion that there is clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of  opposite parties No.1 to3 and  there is merit in the case of the complainant that he has sustained financial loss and  mental agony due to the malfeasance, nonfeasance and misfeasance of opposite parties No.1 to 3.  Therefore the complainant is entitled to get back the amount of Rs.1,71,564/- along with interest from opposite party No.1 to 3 as claimed in the complaint.  The complainant is also entitled to get a reasonable compensation from opposite party No.1 to 3 for the mental agony sustained.  But the claim of compensation sought for in the complaint is Rs.2,00,000/- which appears to be excessive.  In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.50,000/- as compensation and also entitled to get reasonable costs of the proceedings.  The points answered accordingly.

Point No.4

In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms.

1. Opposite party No.1to 3 are directed to pay Rs.1,71,564/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization, 
2. The opposite party No.1to 3  are directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization.
3. Opposite parties No.1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of the proceedings to the complainant. 

Opposite party No.1&2 are directed to pay the amount of Rs.2,31,564/- covered under relief No.1 to 3 with interest at the rate of 9% p.a except for costs to the complainant  subject to their right to recover the same from the 3^rd opposite party agent who collected the amount from the complainant and failed to remit the same in the LIC.

Opposite party No.1&2 are directed to comply with the above directions within 45 days from the date of  receipt of a copy of  this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the above amount with interest @12% p.a except for costs from the date of complaint till realization from Opposite party No.1&2 jointly and severally and from their assets.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the 27^th   day of  December   2021.

E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

         S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-

         Stanly Harold:Sd/-

        Forwarded/by Order

       Senior Superintendent

INDEX  

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-

PW1  :         Jacob

PW2  :         Raju.A

PW3  :         P.K.Rajan

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext P1         :  Kutti Book

Ext P2         :  RTI Reply  from LIC

Ext.P3         :  Kutty Book

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-

DW1 :         Chandralekha.U

DW2 :         P.Jacob

Documents marked for opposite party:-

Ext.D1        : Copy of authorization letter dated 22.07.2020.

Ext.D2        :  Letter of appointment dated 26.06.2015.

Ext.D3        :  True copy of ID card.

Ext.D4        :  Revised procedure of empowerment of agents for premium collection dated 10.11.2008.

Ext.D5        :  Authorization to collect renewal premium.

Ext.D6        :  Proposal for insurance.

Ext.D7        :  Insurance policy.

Ext.D8        :  Copy of rules, regulations and guidelines related to agents.

Ext.D9        :  Statute report of policy No.781423910.

Ext.D10      :  History of loan transaction.

Ext.D11      : Claim history for policy No.782423718.

Ext.D12      :  Status report of policy No. 782423718.

Ext.D13      :  Ordinary revival quotation.

Ext.D14      :  Renewal premium receipt dated 06.02.2016.

Ext.D15      : Renewal premium receipt dated 11.05.2016.

Ext.D16      :  Letter dated 17.10.2016.

E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

            S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-

           Stanly Harold:Sd/-

           Forwarded/by Order

           Senior Superintendent