Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/953/2019

Vir Bhan Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Pankaj Maini

04 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/953/2019
Date of Institution	:	19/09/2019
Date of Decision	:	04/10/2022

 

Vir Bhan Singla son of Sh.Sadhu Ram, resident of House No.HIG-656, Sector 16, Panchkula.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Life Insurance Corporation of India through its Manager (CRM) LIC Divisional Office, Jeewan Parkash Building, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.
2. The Senior Divisional Manager LIC of India, Divisional Office, Jeewan Parkash Building, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Pankaj Maini, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Rajeev Sharma, Counsel for OPs.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had purchased the policy from the OPs on 08.01.2001 an Endowment Assurance Policy without interest. As per complainant, the OPs have wrongly mentioned that at the date of maturity, if the death of the complainant did not occurred, then sum assured only is only payable. Copy of the policy alongwith terms and conditions is annexed as Annexure C-1. As per schedule issued by the OPs to the complainant, the date of issue of the policy was 15.01.2001 and date of maturity was January 2018 and the rate of interest to be carried on the policy was @ 9.5%. The OPs have paid only the principal amount of Rs.1 lacs to the complainant in his account without paying any interest or bonus to him (Annexure C-2). The complainant had issued the legal notice to the OPs by clarifying that he has paid premium of 17 annual installments of Rs.5422/-, whereas, at the time of the issuance of the policy he was informed that he will get Rs.2,50,000/- at the time of maturity (Annexure C-3). As per complainant he is entitled for sum assured + bonus in addition to that final additional bonus if premium paid is for 15 years or more. As per their terms and conditions the complainant is entitled for bonus @ 48/- per thousand rupees per annum and final additional bonus @ Rs.500/- per thousand rupees (Annexure C-5). With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that at the time of taking policy by the complainant, he was very much aware about nature of the policy i.e., “Endowment Assurance Policy without profits and bonus” and it is specifically written on the first page of policy bond “Endowment Assurance Policy without profits and accident benefit, death before date of maturity-sum assured only & surviving on the date of maturity-sum assured only.” The complainant has filed the present complaint on the ground that he is entitled to get Rs.1.5 lacs as bonus but as per policy taken by him he is not eligible for any bonus or interest as it is specifically mentioned in the policy bond that Endowment Assurance Policy without profits and accident benefit. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.     Rejoinder by way of rebuttal evidence was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     On perusal of the policy annexed by the complainant himself at Annexure C-1, it is observed that on the said policy it is very clearly mentioned that “Endowment Assurance Policy without profits and accident benefit, death before date of maturity-sum assured only & surviving on the date of maturity-sum assured only.”   

         Since the complainant has survived date of maturity, then as per policy, only sum assured is payable and which has been rightly paid by the OPs to the complainant. Moreover, the complainant has taken the policy without any benefits, thus he is not entitled to get the benefits.

7.     The terms of the policy are very important. It is a contract between the parties. Both the parties are expected to abide by the terms of insurance. In United Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, AIR 2004 SC 4974, Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 13 observed that, "It is settled law that terms of the policy shall govern the contract between the parties, they have to abide by the definition given therein and all those expressions appearing in the policy should be interpreted with reference to the terms of policy and not with reference to the definition given in other laws. It is a matter of contract and in terms of the contract the relation of the parties shall abide and it is presumed that when the parties have entered into a contract of insurance with their eyes wide open, they cannot rely on definition given in other enactment."   
8.     In view of the aforesaid discussion and the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. Accordingly, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
9.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
04/10/2022			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member