District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal
(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)
Telefax: (03522)-270013
Present
Shri Sambhunath Chatterjee - President
Miss. Swapna Saha - Member
Shri S. Ganguli - Member
Consumer Complaint No. 46/2014
Khateja @Khataja Khatun
W/o Mojammel Sarkar
Vill.: Darpail, PO: Daralhat, PS: Tapan
Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur …………………Complainant(s)
V-E-R-S-U-S
1. The Divisional Manager,
Micro Insurance Unit, Life Insurance Corporation of India
Jalpaiguri Divisional Office, ‘Jeevan Prakash’ Building, 2nd Floor,
Vill.: Shantipara, PO & PS : Jalpaiguri
Dist.: Jalpaiguri - 735101
2. Senior Divisional Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Jalpaiguri Divisional Office, ‘Jeevan Prakash’ Building,
Vill.: Shantipara, PO & PS : Jalpaiguri
Dist.: Jalpaiguri - 735101
3. Sujit Kundu S/o Late Ajit Kr. Kundu,
Branch in Charge, Jeevan Madhur Plan Office of UDGHRW,
Balurghat Branch
Resident at -
Vill.: Bainkunthapur (Near Simanta Shikha Club),
PO & PS : Hili
Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur – 733126 ……………Opposite Parties
For complainant …………… - Shri Santanu Dey, Ld. Adv.
For OP Nos. 1 & 2 …………… - Shri Dibakar Bhattacharya, Ld. Adv.
For OP No. 3 …………… - In Person.
Date of Filing : 12.11.2014
Date of Disposal : 24.07.2015
Contd…P/2
Judgment & Order dt. 24.07.2015
The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased three policies of LIC’s Jeevan Madhur from Jeevan Madhur Plan Office of UDGHRW, Balurghat Branch of “LIC of India- R045 Micro In”. The above mentioned polices were sponsored by Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jalpaiguri Division with their logos and address with full trust over the brand name of LICI.
The complainant paid 47 premium @ Rs.100/- per month i.e. Rs.4,700/- in total as premium up to November, 2012 through her agent Brajendra Nath Majumder to Jeevan Madhur office of UDGHRW Balurghat Branch. It was contended by the complainant that due to financial crisis the complainant failed to pay premium up to 60 months against said those policies and the complainant paid premium against each of the above noted policies for consecutive 47 months i.e. for a period above 2 years.
After completion of 5 years the complainant claimed the maturity amount from LIC of India in writing, the OP No.2 refused to pay any amount to the complainant against those policies due to reasons mentioned as lapsed. The complainant, thereafter, sent a Lawyer’s notice that was served upon the OP Nos. 1 & 2, but no action was taken from their end.
In view of the said fact the complainant files this case praying for Rs. 3 lakh compensation along with 14,100/- with interest @10.2% per month from the date filing of this case from 21.4.2014.
The OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3 filed written version whereby they denied all the material allegations made by the complainant. It was stated that the concept of Micro Insurance is completely a new one and it is specifically mentioned in the said policy that policy can be surrendered at least 2 years’ premium have been paid and in Table 182 under
Contd…P/3
clause 8 it is specifically mentioned that the policy can be surrendered at least after 2 years premium have been paid and in that case the surrendered value shall be 30% of the premium paid. The LIC of India being a financial organization under Public Sector Undertaking of Govt. of India have social commitment was directed by the Govt. of India and since the LIC of India for developing country’s growth as a whole and also for bringing the poorest of the poor section of toiling masses under the umbrella of insurance and with that motto to bring them to social mainstream the LIC of India adopted Micro Insurance Policy on the basis of the proposal made by the Hon’ble President and the said Micro Insurance policy is known as Jeevan Madhur.
Here in this case the agent specified by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority of India (IRDA) as per section 2(f) of IRDA Micro Insurance regulations has define as agents an (1) NGO, (2) Self Help Group (SHG) (3) MFI. Here the NGO the agent is the Uttar Dinajpur group for Human Resources Welfare (UDGHRD) having its head office at Bidhan Nagar More, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur and branch office in the district Dakshin Dinajpur with the address- Jeevan Madhur Plan Office, 3½ No. More, Balurghat.
The agent was entrusted to (a) collection of proposal forms, (b) collection of self-declaration from the proposer (c) collection and remittance of deposits and premium with the LIC of India.
It was also agreed with the Micro Insurance agent shall perform his duties in such a manner : -
- Any insurance premium collected by their specified persons on a policy of Micro Insurance on behalf of LIC of India shall be remitted to LIC of India.
- If it is not possible to send amount through a messenger the amount will be sent by Demand Draft.
- The soft copy of data entry is to be sent to LIC of India etc.
Contd…P/4
The Micro Insurance agent has deviated from duties and responsibilities since the agent failed to comply to agree code of conduct by M.I. agent.
It was specified stated by LIC of India that the complainant purchased three policies from UDGHRD and MI agent are authorized collector and received premium from the policyholders.
The premium acknowledgement book reflects the premium amount collected by the specified person and status of each policy as per MI module reflect. No. of premium deposited and adjusted against each policy. Accordingly, LIC of India denied for issuing of premium receipts annexed by the complainant.
It was contended by the LIC of India that according to non-forfeiture regulation of LIC of India MI policy if at least 2 full years i.e. 24 months premium is received and adjusted against any policy, it is entitled to get benefit by way of maturity claim, death claim and surrendered value. The OPs informed the complainant that the policies were lapsed since the condition of deposit of money was not made in accordance with condition of the policies.
Since there were some irregularities committed by the NGO, UDGHRD etc. thereafter the LIC of India terminated their agency and the same was published in the newspapers.
In view of the facts and circumstances of stated above since the complainant failed to deposit the money as per condition of the policy, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any return of money or will not get any compensation from the OPs.
On the basis of pleadings of respective parties it is to be clarified here in this case regarding the points mentioned herein below:-
- Whether LIC of India issued the policy to the complainant?
Contd…P/5
- Whether LIC of India received any amount from the complainant towards premium or not?
- Whether any misdeed committed by the agent will confer any liability on LIC of India?
- Whether LIC of India is duty bound to return the money to the complainant?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service committed by the LIC of India in negating the claim of the complainant?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken together for avoidance of repetition of facts.
The complainant in order to substantiate the claim regarding her holding the policies and payment of money towards premium several documents have been filed including the original policies and the receipts. Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that from the policies as well as receipts it can be found that logo of LIC of India was used everywhere which assured the complainant regarding the existing of those policies under control of LIC of India. LIC of India being a government undertaking has numerous policyholders and being the complainant coming from the poorest section of the society invested her hard earned money towards those policies with the conviction that she would get back the amount and her policies would be under the control of LIC of India. Ld. Lawyer for the complainant emphasized that in spite of giving Lawyer’s notice LIC of India did not take any measure for returning of the money and only an intimation was given in response to the letter in writing by the Ld. Advocate that the policies were lapsed which goes to show that the OP Nos. 1 & 2 in collusion with OP-3 deprived the complainant to claim her hard earned money and as such OP Nos. 1 & 2 expressed their desire that they had no direct control regarding the said scheme for which the amount was invested by the complainant. Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that all the receipts
Contd…P/6
filed by the complainant clearly speaks that the amount was received by the LIC of India and there was close relationship between OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3, therefore, the LIC of India is responsible for paying the amount regarding the deposit made by the complainant.
Ld. Lawyer for the OP Nos. 1 & 2 argued that the LIC of India being the Govt. of India undertaking organization and in order to fulfill social commitment as envisaged by the Govt. of India, this Jeevan Madhur scheme was adopted by the Govt. of India and LIC of India was entrusted to monitor the scheme, but the agents were recruited as per the guideline prepared by the Insurance Regulatory Authority of India (IRDA) and as per 2(f) of IRDA (Micro Insurance) Regulations define as agents an (i) NGO (ii) SHG (iii) MFI. OP-3 being the agent and the amount was collected by the said agency and it was bounden duty of the said agent to deposit the money to the LIC of India. It was found that 22 months premium were paid to the LIC of India on behalf of the complainant. Since, the payment of 24 months was not paid as such the policy was declared lapsed and the complainant’s claim could not be entertained by the LIC of India. In view of the facts and circumstances of the above the Ld. Lawyer for the OPs argued that the LIC of India cannot be held responsible for return of the money as well as payment of any compensation as claimed by the complainant.
Considering the submission of the respective parties it appears that the complainant in order to claim has filed some receipts wherefrom it appears that she paid premium in respect of said Jeeven Madhur plan. The complainant also filed some documents including leaflets, receipts etc. wherefrom it appears that the logo of LICI was duly printed on those documents. It is also admitted fact that LICI monitored the said scheme, though the LICI has claimed that as per direction of Govt. of India the said scheme was opened in order to bring the people of weaker section of our society under the insurance scheme and for that purpose LICI was entrusted to monitor the said scheme.
Contd…P/7
So far as the argument advanced by the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant that the entire amount was paid by the complainant actually was paid to LICI is not correct since the amount was received by authorized agent and the agent was recruited after having consultation with LICI and LICI also took active part in running the said scheme. It is found that the OP-3 filed written objection by stating inter- alia that after collection of the amount towards premium he deposited the same to LICI but no substantive documents could be placed by him during the hearing of the case. Though, some documents were filed but those documents do not substantiate that he deposited the premium of the complainant to the LICI.
From the documents filed by LICI it appears that the premium was received by OP–1 & 2 from the complainant in respect of 22 installments. Since the complainant did not pay for 24 installments for which LICI held that policies were lapsed but from the materials on record it appears that the complainant paid premium more than 2 years, if that fact is taken into consideration then it cannot be stated that the policies were lapsed. Since, it appears from the record that the LICI received premium for 22 months which has been admitted by the OP Nos.1 & 2 and since the complainant is a lady belonging to a poorer section of our society and she paid hard earned money therefore, she cannot be denied to get back the amount paid by her by raising technical point that she failed to pay the premium for 24 months but receipts filed by the complainant it shows that she continued her payment even after payment of 22 installment.
Having regard facts and circumstances of the case we hold that complainant will be entitled to get the entire amount deposited by her i.e. Rs.2,200/- plus interest @ 8 % p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim and the OP 1 & 2 are directed to pay the amount within 60 days from this day failing which complainant will also get 9% interest on the said amount till the realization of principal amount and interest. Thus, all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Contd…P/8
Hence it is,
O R D E R E D
that the instant petition of complaint is allowed on contest against the OP No. 1 & 2. The complainant will be entitled to get the amount deposited by her i.e. Rs.2,200/- plus interest @ 8 % p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim and the OP 1 & 2 are directed to pay the said amount within 60 days from this day failing which complainant will get 9% interest on the entire amount till the realization.
Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.
Dictated & corrected
………Sd/-….…….
(Sambhunath Chatterjee)
President
We concur,
……Sd/-..…… ………Sd/-……..
(S. Saha) (S. Ganguli)
Member Member
- Date when free copy was issued ……………………
- Date of application for certified copy ……………………
- Date when copy was made ready ……………………
- Date of delivery ……………………
FREE COPY [Reg. 18(6)]
- Mode of dispatch ……………………
- Date of dispatch ……………………
-x-
