Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1085/2019

Prabhjot Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Life Insurance Corporation of India - Opp.Party(s)

05 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/1085/2019
Date of Institution	:	26/11/2019
Date of Decision	:	05/09/2022

 

Smt.Prabhjot Kaur aged about 63 years W/o Sh. Ravi Karan Singh, R/o House No.26, Canedy Avenue, Amritsar C/o Kothi No.10, Sector 8A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jeewandeep Building, Unit-1, Sector 17B, Chandigarh through its Manager.

                                   … Opposite Party

2. NABARD, Punjab Regional Office, Plot No.3, Sector 34A, Chandigarh through its Manager.

… Proforma O.P.

CORAM :	SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant.
	:	Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, Counsel for OP No.1.
	:	None for OP No.2.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Briefly stated the allegations are that the complainant has deposited Rs.60,000/- from 15.03.2010 to 15.03.2013 upto 3 years @ Rs.5000/- per quarter (Rs.20,000/- in a year)and total amount were paid Rs.60,000/- upto three years. As per complainant, in the year 15.03.2010 sensex was Rs.17,164/- and on 23.03.2018 sensex  was Rs.36,139/- and in the advt. published in the newspaper  it was mentioned the eight years period, so, now the payment may be made Rs.9,16,834/- in excess of the money of Rs.60,000/- deposited by the complaint alongwith 12 per cent interest for three years period. The complainant was paid only Rs.4000/- after eight years period which is a very lessor money as promise made by the LIC Company of India at the time of making policy on 15.03.2010, but later made one or the other excuse from making payment. The complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs (Annexure C-8). Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant has filed the instant complaint. 
2.     OP No.1 contested the consumer complaint. As per it, the complainant had filled the proposal form for taking wealth plus policy (Annexure R-1). LIC’s Wealth Plus is a ULIP plan which is different from the traditional policy in the sense that it is subject to market risk. LIC does not authorize its agents/intermediaries/staff and officials to express their opinion on the future performance of the ULIP fund, excepting the prescribed illustrative rate of 6% and 10% growth. As per it, the investments are always subject to market risks and hence the returns under a policy depend on the performance of the financial market on the date of reckoning. In the proposal form it was indicated that the premium will be paid quarterly, the sum assured under the policy was Rs.1,00,000/-. It is also mentioned in the policy that the fund opted by the life assured was wealth plus. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.     OP No.2 contested the consumer complaint. As per it, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the OP No.2 has no role in the present matter as such the same is liable to be dismissed. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.2.
4.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsel for OP No.1 and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
7.     Per Proposal Form and Policy documents (Annexure R-1 & R-2), premium was to be paid for three years and the policy was to mature after eight years, while the case of the complainant is otherwise of she being paid less than what was projected to her on payment of premium for three years and as such, she is entitled for payment of the maturity value as per terms and conditions of the Policy.
8.     Admittedly, the Proposal Form (Annexure  R-1) is signed by the complainant which shows the terms and conditions as was reflected in the reply furnished on behalf of the OP No.1.The complainant is not expected to sign a document without knowing its contents.
9.     Per pleadings of the OP No.1 number of unit as on 12.03.2018 were 4186.627 and NAV value of each unit as on 12.03.2018 which was the highest was 15.41019.
10.     Perusal of the record (Annexure R-3 to R-5) shows that the Complainant was sent letter giving information regarding the maturity benefit amount and was also requested to submit the necessary documents. The Complainant sent the NEFT bank mandate form for transfer of amount and the same was acknowledged by the OP No.1. The payment was made as per terms & conditions of the Policy and the maturity benefits was paid through NEFT on 22.05.2018 for an amount of Rs.64,516/-.
11.     Since the maturity benefits stood paid through NEFT vide transaction dated 22.05.2018 for an amount of Rs.64,516/- (4186.627 units x 15.4101 NAV), per terms of the Policy & NAV, to our mind, no other amount was payable.
12.     In view of above discussion, we find no merit in present consumer complaint. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
13.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
05/09/2022	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
Ls	Member	Presiding Member