Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/184/2018

Sri.B.S.Shivamurthy S/o Late Siddappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Lic - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.G.B.Prakash

18 Jan 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:28.09.2018

DISPOSED  ON:18.01.2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO:184/2018

 

DATED:  18^th JANUARY 2019

PRESENT :-     SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH :    PRESIDENT                            B.A., LL.B.,

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI:

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,                LADY MEMBER

 

……COMPLAINANT	Sri. B.S. Shivamurthy S/o Late Siddappa, Aged about 51 years, R/o Kodagavalli Village, B.Durga, Hobli, Holalkere Tq, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.P.B. Prakash, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Davanagere-1, Branch P.B. No. 76, LIC Building K.R. Road, Davanagere Town.   2.The Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India B.D. Road, Chitradurga Town.   (Rep by Sri.H.S. Sathyanarayana Shetty, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs  to pay Rs.1,79,581/- towards policy maturity amount, Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain, shock and agony, Rs.2,00,000/- towards cheating with interest @ 12% p.a with cost and to grant such other reliefs.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the above complainant is that, he has invested single premium of Rs.1,00,000/- towards LIC’s Market Plus Policy with OP on 29.03.2008 and paid to the OP for a period of 10 years.  The OP has issued policy bearing No.625564533 on 29.03.2008 and the same is matured on 29.03.2018.  At the time of issuing the policy, the OP has given an assurance that, they will pay sum insured with accrued benefits and bonus over the premium on or after the maturity of policy period on surrendering the original policy and the same will be repaid without any conditions.  After maturity, the complainant approached the OP for making payment of the same with benefits and bonus along with all required proof and bank particulars, they issued shocking endorsement to the complainant stating that, the maturity amount with accrued benefits of Rs.1,79,581/- by converting the policy to pension plan market plus without knowledge and notice of the complainant till the endorsement of the OP, the same amounts to deficiency of service and the OP has cheated the complainant, therefore, the complainant has issued legal notice to the OP claiming policy amount, but the same went in vain, which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and hence prayed for allow the complaint.

3.     On service of notice to the OP, Sri. H.S. Sathyanarayana Shetty, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP and filed version.   According to the version filed by the OP, it is submitted that, the policy is under unit linked plan without life risk and hence, the policy involves speculative gains through trading in shares.  So, it is a commercial/speculative gain policy and therefore, the policy holder could not be termed as consumer.  Hence, the complaint filed by the complainant is not consumer dispute.  It is admitted that, the complainant has invested an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under market plus plan without risk for a term of 10 years by submitting a proposal dated 28.03.2008.  In the proposal form it is clearly mentioned that the proposal form is for market plus plan and the proposer has replied all the questions and therefore, the OP has accepted the proposal of complainant and issued LIC’s market plus policy bearing No.625564533 with date of commencement as 29.03.2018.  It is further submitted that, the OP never given any assurance to the complainant that, it shall pay the sum assured with accrue benefits and bonus over the premium on or after the maturity on surrendering the original policy with any condition, the same is put to strict proof of the same.  It is false to state that OP has converted the LIC’s Market Plus Plan to Pension Plan Market Plus Scheme without knowledge and notice of the complainant and the same is put to strict proof of the same.  It is clearly mentioned on the schedule of the policy bond that, an amount equal to the fund value of the units held in the policy holders unit account at the investing date, after allowing for an option to commute a maximum of 1/3^rd of the fund value of units held in policy holder’s unit account, shall be compulsorily utilized to provide pension based on the then prevailing immediate annuity rates and other terms and conditions either from the corporation or any other life insurance company.  It is denied as false that, the OP has converted the policy into pension plan on its own.  It is incorrect to state that, the bonus and sum assured will be paid after maturity without any condition.  It is submitted that, even now the complainant as per the terms of the policy, can commute 33% of the amount and take in lump sum for his above needs and the balance amount has to be compulsorily paid in the form of pension only.  It is false to state that, the complainant paid the premium based on the expectation to bear the family health risk and give good education.  The name of the policy is Market Plus and not the health and education.  It is false to state that, the OP has not settled the claim of the complainant as per the terms of contract and this OP has not informed that, he has an option to take commuted value of 33% of the total amount of Rs.1,79,581/- i.e., nearly about Rs.60,000/- can be taken in lump sum and the balance amount in the form of annuity on monthly, quarterly, half yearly basis as desired by the complainant.  It is further submitted that, the unit linked policies are being speculative in nature, hence, these policies are not maintainable before this Forum.  The OP informed the complainant nine months in advance about maturity proceeds in the form of annuity, if the option is not exercised well before maturity.  As per the plan condition, the complainant can take 33% of the maturity proceeds in the form of commutation and the remaining amount in the form of pension under desired option with desired mode.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     Complainant himself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-3 got marked.  OPs have examined one Sri. B. Shamanna, the Administrative Officer as DW-1 and relied on Ex.B-1 and B-5 documents and closed their side.

5.     Arguments heard.

6.     Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaint are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OP No.1 and 2 have committed deficiency of service in settling the claim made by him under the policy and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

        7.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

        Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.     It is not in dispute that, the complainant has invested single premium of Rs.1,00,000/- towards LIC’s Market Plus Policy with OP on 29.03.2008 for a period of 10 years under policy bearing No.625564533 on 29.03.2008 and the same is matured on 29.03.2018.  At the time of issuing the policy, the OP has given an assurance that, they will pay sum insured with accrued benefits and bonus over the premium on or after the maturity of policy period on surrendering the original policy and the same will be repaid without any conditions.  After maturity, the complainant approached the OP for making payment of the same with benefits and bonus along with all required proof and bank particulars, but the OP issued shocking endorsement to the complainant stating that, the maturity amount with accrued benefits of Rs.1,79,581/- is to be paid by converting the policy to pension plan market plus, the same was without the knowledge and notice of the complainant, the same amounts to deficiency of service and the OPs have cheated the complainant.  Because, the complainant never permitted the OPs to change the policy into pension benefit.  Without any permission obtained from the complainant, the OPs have changed the policy into pension scheme, the same amounts to deficiency of service

9.     We have gone through the entire documents filed by both the parties, it clearly admitted by the OPs that, the complainant has obtained the policy from them.  After maturity of the said policy, the complainant approached the OPs claiming insurance amount.  But the OPs told that, the policy has been converted into pension scheme. The complainant is required money for his family benefits.  The complainant never gave consent to the OPs to change the policy into pension plan.  Such being the case, this Forum comes to the conclusion that, the OPs have committed deficiency in service in payment of the insured amount to the complainant.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.

          10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed pay a sum of Rs.1,79,581/- towards insurance policy bearing No.625564533 along with interest @ 9% pa from the date of complaint till realization.

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceeding.  

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

            (This order is made with the consent of Lady Member after the correction of the draft on 18/01/2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)     

 

                                     

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:  Sri. B. Shammanna, the Administrative Officer by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Original Policy
02	Ex-A-2:-	Maturity claim
03	Ex-A-3:-	Letter of endorsement

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Proposal form
02	Ex-B-2:-	Policy bond
03	Ex-B-3:-	Option intimation letter dated 12.06.2017
04	Ex-B-4:-	Case study
05	Ex-B-5:-	List of market policies matured

 

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**