Order No. 14 dt. 17/04/2019
The case of the complainant according to the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased one LIC Policy Jeevan Akshay sold by the authorized LIC agent Mr. Archit Saha. At the time of purchasing the policy the said agent has confirmed that the complainant will be able to withdraw his purchase money at any point of time. Mr. Archit Saha, the said agent was fully aware of the age of the complainant and the citizenship of the complainant at the time of making the policy. The complainant has purchased the policy with an amount of Rs.3,83,195/- with an amount of Rs.28,259/- as the annuity installment to be paid every year. The complainant in the year 2016 was in need of money and came to India and expressed his willingness to withdraw the purchase price of the policy. He was informed by Mr. Archit Saha that there is a lock in period of the LIC policy for three years and only on the basis of medical emergencies can withdraw this money. Thereafter, the complainant made several correspondences with the said agent but the said agent could not provide any assistance to the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant took up the matter with the higher authority of the LIC but the o.p. no.1 could not give any assistance to the complainant for which the complainant alleged that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Co. as well as there is unfair trade practice on their part. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying direction upon the o.p.s to pay a sum of Rs.8,03,195/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
O.p. nos. 1 to 5 contested the case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the o.p. LIC of India received duly filled in proposal forms along with other document and premium on the basis of which policy was issued. The complainant filled up a proposal form for taking Jeevan Akshay – VI policy (Annuity / Pension Policy) on 30/03/2015 with an option exercised by the complainant as joint life and last survival annuity with 100% annuity payable to the spouse on death of annuitant i.e. Option- J. According to the terms & condition of the policy annexed by the complainant with his complaint petition, different options for his annuity policy are described. The complainant has claimed that he is a NRI and the citizen of Canada but the complainant suppressed the said fact in the proposal form. Apart from the said fact the complainant after receiving the policy document did not exercise his option for cancellation of the policy i.e. within free look period. As per the proposal form the Option chosen by the complainant is joint life and last survival annuity with annuity 100% payable to the spouse on the death of annuitant. The complainant never exercised his Option-F of the policy but he exercised Option-J. After receiving the annuity for three years complainant wanted to surrender the policy. During the period of three years he has not enquired about the terms and conditions of the policy or has not understood the same is nothing but an attempt to manufacture a story by giving false blame upon the agent. The complainant has falsely claimed that he never understood the terms and conditions of the policy and he exercised his option-F not the option-J but in the policy document it was categorically stated that the complainant exercised the option-J and accordingly, the policy was issued in his favour. On the basis of the facts as stated above the o.p. insurance company prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be decided :-
- Whether the complainant availed the policy issued by the o.p. insurance company?
- Whether the complainant was deceived by the agent and the policy was wrongly issued to the complainant?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps.?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons :-
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased one LIC Policy Jeevan Akshay sold by the authorized LIC agent Mr. Archit Saha. At the time of purchasing the policy the said agent has confirmed that the complainant will be able to withdraw his purchase money at any point of time. Mr. Archit Saha, the said agent was fully aware of the age of the complainant and the citizenship of the complainant at the time of making the policy. The complainant has purchased the policy with an amount of Rs.3,83,195/- with an amount of Rs.28,259/- as the annuity installment to be paid every year. The complainant in the year 2016 was in need of money and came to India and expressed his willingness to withdraw the purchase price of the policy. He was informed by Mr. Archit Saha that there is a lock in period of the LIC policy for three years and only on the basis of medical emergencies can withdraw this money. Thereafter, the complainant made several correspondences with the said agent but the said agent could not provide any assistance to the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant took up the matter with the higher authority of the LIC but the o.p. no.1 could not give any assistance to the complainant for which the complainant alleged that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Co. as well as there is unfair trade practice on their part. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying direction upon the o.p.s to pay a sum of Rs.8,03,195/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Ld. Lawyer for the o.p.s argued that that the o.p. LIC of India received duly filled in proposal forms along with other document and premium on the basis of which policy was issued. The complainant filled up a proposal form for taking Jeevan Akshay – VI policy (Annuity / Pension Policy) on 30/03/2015 with an option exercised by the complainant as joint life and last survival annuity with 100% annuity payable to the spouse on death of annuitant i.e. Option- J. According to the terms & condition of the policy annexed by the complainant with his complaint petition, different options for his annuity policy are described. The complainant has claimed that he is a NRI and the citizen of Canada but the complainant suppressed the said fact in the proposal form. Apart from the said fact the complainant after receiving the policy document did not exercise his option for cancellation of the policy i.e. within free look period. As per the proposal form the Option chosen by the complainant is joint life and last survival annuity with annuity 100% payable to the spouse on the death of annuitant. The complainant never exercised his Option-F of the policy but he exercised Option-J. After receiving the annuity for three years complainant wanted to surrender the policy. During the period of three years he has not enquired about the terms and conditions of the policy or has not understood the same is nothing but an attempt to manufacture a story by giving false blame upon the agent. The complainant has falsely claimed that he never understood the terms and conditions of the policy and he exercised his option-F not the option-J but in the policy document it was categorically stated that the complainant exercised the option-J and accordingly, the policy was issued in his favour. On the basis of the facts as stated above the o.p. insurance company prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant obtained a policy and as per the terms and conditions of the policy the insurance company paid annuity for three years. The complainant has stated that he entirely dependent on the assurance of the agent but the agent in his written version denied the said fact. It is the bounden duty of the policy holder to substantiate his claim that he was misled by the agent. The complainant failed to substantiate such allegation against the said agent. On the contrary from the policy document itself it was categorically stated that the policy known as Jeevan Akshay-VI Policy (Annuity/Pension Policy) with an option exercised by the complainant is joint life and last survival annuity with 100% annuity payable to spouse on death of annuitant i.e. Option-J. The complainant has claimed that he was misled by the agent that the cancellation of the policy cannot be made before the lock in period for three years. But in the policy document it is categorically stated that after one year the policy holder can opt for cancellation of the policy. The complainant has claimed that he is a NRI but in the application for policy he has disclosed that he is a resident of Indian and nowhere it was stated that he is a citizen of Canada and he will never come back to India for the rest period of his life. The complainant has alleged that he never applied for getting pension facility in respect of the said policy but the documents filed by the complainant categorically stated that he opted for joint life and last survival annuity with 100% annuity payable to spouse on death of annuitant. The complainant for the purpose of manufacturing of the case has given blame upon the LIC agent though he received the policy document three years prior to the filing of the case and enjoyed the annuity for three years. After enjoyment of such benefit the complainant open up from slumber and claimed that he was misled by the agent. If the agent is not being blamed the case could not be manufactured. For the said purpose the agent has been made a scapegoat for making false allegation against the insurance company. The complainant also failed to exercise option for cancellation of the policy within the free look period and after the enjoyment of the policy for so many years the complainant manufactured this case by making false allegations against the o.p. insurance company. Having regard to the facts and circumstances we hold that the complainant filed this case on the basis of some imaginary story which is not at all believable. Accordingly, we hold that the case filed by the complainant is devoid of any merit and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the case no.78/2018 is dismissed on contest without cost.
