BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 459/2004 Filed on 09.12.2004<br /> Dated : 18.04.2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> Jesolit Samuel, Flora, 11-1697-1, E-1, Charachira, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> (By adv. P.A.Ahamed & Narayan)<br /> Opposite party :<br /> Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office represented by its Divisional Manager, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> (By adv. Anayara Shaji)<br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 29.08.2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 31.03.2008, the Forum on 18.04.2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> <br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> This complaint is filed for directing the opposite party to disburse monthly pension of Rs. 5560/- from 28.04.2004. Further relief sought for is for awarding a sum of Rs. 10000/- as damages and for awarding cost. It is stated in the complaint as follows : Complainant has joined in the Jeevan Suraksha Scheme introduced by the opposite party with effect from 30.03.1999. Accordingly policy No. 782 005597 dated 28.03.1999 was issued to the complainant. As per the terms of the said policy the complainant had remitted premium amount of Rs. 21000/- per quarter without default till the last instalment which fell due on 28.12.2003. As per the said policy the total amount assured is Rs. 560220/-. It is further stipulated in the policy that the monthly pension payable to the complainant is to be commenced from 28.04.2004 at the rate of Rs. 5560/-. After subscribing the entire amount the complainant requested the opposite party to disburse the pension. Opposite party disbursed only a sum of Rs. 4865/- from monthly pension. On 11.06.2004 complainant had written to the opposite party pointing out this anomaly. But complainant was informed that the complainant had exercised 'option F' wherein the annuity is only Rs. 4865/-. In fact the complainant has not exercised any option and allegation to contrary is wrong. It is further stated that once a policy is issued the rights and liabilities of the parties are governed by the conditions of the policy. As per the terms of policy opposite party is bound to pay a monthly pension of Rs. 5560/-. Any deviation from this term amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant had issued lawyer's notice on 22.09.2004 calling upon the opposite party to disburse the entire pension as stipulated in the policy. Even after acknowledging the said notice the opposite party did not care to respond the same and disburse the pension as per the terms. Hence this complaint is filed for directing the opposite party to disburse monthly pension of Rs. 5560/- from 28.04.2004 and also for compensation and costs.<br /> <br /> 2. Opposite party filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in facts or in law. Complainant has no locus standi to institute this complaint since there was no cause of action. It is true that the complainant joined in the Jeevan Suraksha Scheme introduced by the opposite party with effect from 10.03.1999 and policy No. 782005597 dated 28.03.1999 was issued to the complainant. Option is given to the party to opt from different types of pension. The different options are (A) Annuity guaranteed for life (B) Annuity guaranteed for 5 years and life thereafter, C) Annuity guaranteed for 10 years and life thereafter, (D) Annuity guaranteed for 15 years and life thereafter (E) Joint life pension and (F) Pension for life with return of purchase price on death. It is further stated that when policy is issued we print pension for 15 years certain and thereafter for life as information to the party. Here the pension of Rs. 5560/- is printed accordingly. This can be changed before 6 months of the date of commencement of the pension as per special condition 11 under conditions and privileges of the policy issued to the party. In the proposal form no option was chosen by the party. It is only on 19.05.2004 complainant exercised the 'option F' pension for life with purchase price on death. For this option pension is less than the pension quoted in the policy as the purchase price is refunded to the nominated person by the pensioner on her death, whereas no purchase price is returnable if the pensioner accept the pension quoted in the policy document. On 19.05.2004 complainant signed the option form opting (F). As per the policy the amount of Rs. 560200/-is the final cash option and not the sum assured. The allegation in the complaint that complainant has not exercised any option is far from truth. Since complainant has opted (F) pension and amount was reduced from Rs. 5560/- to Rs. 4865/- as per special condition 11 under conditions and privilege of policy issued to the party. There is no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. After the lawyer's notice dated 22.09.2004 the complainant personally contacted the opposite party and proper explanation was given to her by the officers concerned. Hence complainant is not eligible for any of the reliefs claimed.<br /> <br /> 3. The points that would arise for consideration are :<br /> (i)Whether the complainant is entitled to get monthly pension of Rs. 5560/- from the opposite party?<br /> (ii)Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> (iii)Reliefs and costs?<br /> <br /> 4. On the part of the complainant, complainant as PW1 filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exts. P1 to P6 are marked. On behalf of opposite party, K. Sundaresan, Manager, Legal and HPF, LIC of India, Divisional Office, Thiruvananthapuram as DW1 filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exts. D1 and D2 marked. <br /> <br /> 5. Points (i) to (iii):- The first point requiring consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get monthly pension of Rs. 5560/- from the opposite party. The case of the complainant is that complainant joined the Jeevan Suraksha Scheme introduced by the opposite party with effect from 30.03.1999. Accordingly Jeevan Suraksha policy No.782005597 was issued to the complainant on 28.03.1999. Opposite party admitted the issuance of the said policy to the complainant. Ext. P1 is the photocopy of the Jeevan Suraksha policy. A perusal of the contents of the Ext. P1 reveals that policy No. is 782005597. Date of commencement is 28.03.1999. Amount of monthly pension (annuity) is Rs. 5560/-, mode of payment of premium is quarterly. The instalment premium is Rs. 21000/- per quarter and notional cash option is Rs. 560220/-. The date of proposal is 30.03.1999. Date of last premium is 28.12.2003. Date on which annuity vests is 28.03.2004. The date of first pension instalment is 28.04.2004. The name of the proposer (annuitant) is Smt. Jesolit Samuel. Ext. D2 and Ext. P1 are one and the same. The dispute herein is about the amount of monthly pension. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that as per the terms of the said policy the complainant had remitted the premium amount of Rs. 21,000/- per quarter without default till the last instalment which fell due on 28.12.2003. It is evident from Ext. P1 that the total amount assured is Rs. 560220/-. After subscribing the entire premium amount complainant requested the opposite party to disburse the monthly pension of Rs. 5560/-. Instead of disbursing the monthly pension of Rs. 5560/- as per Ext. P1, opposite party disbursed only a sum of Rs. 4865/- from monthly pension. It is further submitted that complainant had joined the said Jeevan Suraksha scheme attracted by various advertisements of the opposite parties. Ext. P2 is the copy of pamphlet published by the opposite party. When complainant pointed out the anomaly in the monthly pension disbursed in her letter dated 11.06.2004 she was informed by the opposite party in a letter dated 20.07.2004 that complainant had exercised 'option F', wherein the annuity is only Rs. 4865/-. A copy of the said letter dated 20.07.204 issued by the opposite party to the complainant is marked as Ext. P6. Ext. P3 is the copy of the advocate notice dated 22.09.2004 issued to the opposite party. Ext. P4 is the acknowledgement card and Ext. P5 is the postal receipt. The counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that complainant had not exercised any such option in Ext. P1 policy. It is pertinent to note that Ext. P1 policy had already issued to the complainant. Once such a policy is issued the rights and liabilities of the parties are governed by the conditions of the said policy. The learned counsel appearing for opposite party submitted that option was given to the complainant to opt from different types of pension. As per version different options are (A) Annuity guaranteed for life (B) Annuity guaranteed for 5 years and life thereafter, C) Annuity guaranteed for 10 years and life thereafter, (D) Annuity guaranteed for 15 years and life thereafter (E) Joint life pension and (F) Pension for life with return of purchase price on death. It is evident from Ext. P1 policy that nowhere in Ext. P1 is contained the option F as averred in the version. As per special condition 11 mentioned in Ext. P1 “On the survival of the proposer on the vesting date the following options are available. The options will have to be exercised at least 6 months before the vesting date.” No material on record to show that complainant had exercised option at least 6 months before the vesting date. Ext. D1 is the letter dated 19.06.2004 signed by the complainant. PW1 in her cross examination deposed that she was forced to sign in Ext. D1 when the first instalment pension was delayed by the opposite party. PW1 further deposed that she never exercised option F. DW1 had not furnished letter of authorization showing his authority to give evidence. Complainant challenged the authority of DW1 to give evidence for and on behalf of the opposite party. In his cross examination DW1 deposed that insurance contract is a contract made in utmost good faith. DW1 further admitted that the monthly pension printed in Ext. D2(Ext. P1) is Rs. 5560/-. But nowhere in Ext. P1 it has been stated that monthly pension will not be disbursed if option not exercised by the complainant. Complainant further submitted that there was no provision for option in the proposal form also. In view of the foregoing discussions this forum holds that a contract of insurance is a contract in utmost good faith. Whatever terms and conditions and exceptions contained in the said policy are to read and treated as it is. Even there is no material on record to show how the opposite party arrived at the figure of Rs. 4865/- as monthly pension instead of Rs. 5560/-. Opposite party is bound to follow the terms of the Ext. P1. Hence complainant is entitled to get an amount of monthly pension of Rs. 5560/- as stated in Ext. P1 since all calculations including instalment premium, notional cash option and mode of payment were discussed on the basis of the monthly pension of Rs. 5560/-. Any deviation from the above said terms of Ext. P1 would amount to deficiency in service. In the instant case opposite party denied the full amount of monthly pension of Rs. 5560/- as stated in Ext. P1. Deficiency in service proved. Complainant is entitled to get a monthly pension of Rs. 5560/- from 28.04.2004. Complainant is also entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 2000/- with a cost of Rs. 1000/-. <br /> <br /> In the result complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant a monthly pension of Rs. 5560/- from 28.04.2004. Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs. 2000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1000/- towards costs. Time for compliance two months.<br /> <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 18th April 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No.459/2004<br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :<br /> <br /> PW1 - Jesolit Samuel<br /> <br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> P1 - Copy of insurance policy No. 782005597 dtd. 28.03.1999.<br /> P2 - Copy of pamphlet published by the LIC.<br /> P3 - True copy of lawyer's notice dated 22.09.2004. <br /> P4 - Photocopy of acknowledgement card.<br /> P5 - Copy of postal receipt dtd. 22.09.2004.<br /> P6 - Copy of letter dated 20.07.2004 issued by the opposite party.<br /> <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :<br /> <br /> DW1 - K. Sundaresan<br /> <br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> D1 - Copy of letter dated 19.06.2004.<br /> D2 - Copy of insurance policy No. 782005597 dated 28.03.1999.<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT