BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.115 of 2020

      Date of Instt. 17.02.2020

      Date of Decision: 04.10.2024

Arun Kumar aged about 40 years S/o Sh. Mam Chand, resident of 341, Jaswant Nagar, Garha Road, Near Gurudwara Sahib, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       The Life Insurance Corporation of India, through its Branch    Manager, Unit-1, Model Town Road, Opposite Skylark Chowk,       Jalandhar.

2.       Rajinder Singh, Insurance Agent, at 94, Aladinpur, Jalandhar Cantt.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                                      (Member)

Present:       None for Complainant.

                   Sh. S. C. Sood, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.

                   OP No.2 exparte.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that on the assurance of OP No.2, who is the agent of OP No.1, the complainant took an insurance policy namely Jiwan Saral Plan with handsome return at the time of maturity of the insurance policy. On the request of OP No.2, the complainant visited the office of OP No.1, where the branch manager of OP No.1 apprised the complainant for the benefits of policy and handed over the table of maturity amount in case of different term plan and the complainant took the term of 10 years plan for which premium amount of Rs.1021/- per month is to be paid by way of ECS from the bank account of the complainant. The OPs further assured the complainant that apart from the life cover of 2.5 lakh the complainant will get Rs.2,12,904/- as maturity amount. The policy No.133019177 was issued by OP No.1 to the complainant. The complainant has paid all premiums on time under the said plan and upon maturity of the said insurance policy, the complainant completed all the requisite formalities and submitted all the documents as per requirement of OP No.1 including the original policy bound for releasing the maturity amount in favour of the complainant. The OP No.1 has transferred sum of Rs.1,50,321/- in the bank account of the complainant whereas the maturity amount as assured by the OPs is to be paid of Rs.2,12,904/-. The complainant visited the office of OP No.1 with regard to balance of the maturity amount, but the OP No.1 has failed to give any satisfactory reply to the complainant. The OP No.1 has not been paid the balance maturity amount despite repeated visits to their office by the complainant. The OP No.1 has failed to pay the amount of balance maturity amount of Rs.62,583/- to the complainant. The complainant has approached the OPs for the payment of Rs.62,583/- number of times, but the OP put off the complainant with one pretext or other. The complainant even served a legal notice to the OPs, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to release total amount of Rs.2,84,583/- i.e. maturity amount Rs.62,583/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of maturity till realization, Rs.1,00,000/- on account of non-service/deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs, but despite service OP No.2 failed to appear and ultimately OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant is stopped to file the present complaint by his own act, conduct and acquiescence. The complainant has received full payment of Rs.1,50,321/- at the time of maturity of policy without any protest and any qualification and as such, is not entitled for any other amount. The full and final payment has been received by the complainant. The payment has been made as per policy condition. On merits, it is admitted that insurance policy namely Jiwan Saral Plan, bearing No.133019177 was purchased by the complainant, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the OP No.1 only as none has appeared on behalf of the complainant since last so many dates and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                It is admitted that the policy No.133019177 was purchased by the complainant from the OP. It is also admitted that an insurance policy was purchased under Jiwal Saral Plan. The policy has been proved as Ex.C-1 and the table of maturity amount has been proved as Ex.C-2. The complainant has admitted that Rs.1,50,321/- have been received by him in his account. It has been alleged that as per the assurance given by the OP, there was a life cover of 2.5 lacs and at the time of maturity, amount of Rs.2,12,904/- was to be returned to the complainant. The complainant has alleged the deficiency in service in not paying the complete maturity amount to the complainant.

7.                The OP has relied upon the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and has relied upon the schedule and submitted that Rs.2,50,000/- was to be paid as a death benefit-cum-assured, whereas the payment has been released as maturity sum assured of Rs.1,10,530/- with bonus/interest of Rs.39,791/-, total Rs.1,50,321/- has been paid. The amount of Rs.62,583/- as alleged due to the OP has been denied. It has further been alleged by the OP that the amount has been received without any protest, therefore, the complainant is not entitled. He has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in a Revision Petition No.913 of 2007, decided on 18.05.2007, case titled as ‘Prem Prakash Agarwal Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.’ III (2007) CPJ 433 (NC). Further he has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, in a Revision Petition No.2038 of 2003, decided on 18.02.2008, case titled as ‘National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishna Rice Mills’ II (2008) CPJ 327 (NC). He has further relied upon a law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.150-151 of 2001, titled as ‘Bhagwati Prasad Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India’.

8.                All the facts have been admitted. The point in controversy is regarding the amount due at the time of maturity. Ex.C-1 shows that in the column of schedule, it has specifically been mentioned that maturity sum assured is Rs.1,10,530/- and death benefit sum assured Rs.2,50,000/- and accidental benefit assured Rs.2,50,000/-. It is not disputed that it was ten years term plan and as per Ex.C-1 the sum assured at maturity was Rs.1,10,530/-. The complainant has alleged that he was persuaded by the agent of the OP No.1 to take 10 years term plan for which premium amount of Rs.1021/- per month was to be paid by him. He himself has got insured under Jiwal Saral Plan. In the entire complaint, he has not alleged that he was forced to take the insurance plan fraudulently or undue influence was made upon him. As per Ex.O1, the complainant has himself received the entire amount of the claim to the full satisfaction of him and his claim without any protest. No duress or coercion has been alleged by the complainant. So, as per Ex.O-1 and Ex.O-2, the entire amount has been received by the complainant to his satisfaction without any protest. So, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble National Commission, he is not entitled to claim the balance amount. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.  

Dated                                         Jyotsna                       Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

04.10.2024                      Member                               President