BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                             BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 30^th DAY OF AUDUST, 2022

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.937/2020

PRESENT:

SRI. RAJU K.S:MEMBER

                    SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER

Smt.Premalatha

W/o. M.Venkataswamy
Aged about 60 Years

R/at Khaji Sonnenahalli,

Kannamangala Post,

Via Kadugodi,

Bengaluru-560115.                        ……          COMPLAINANT

(Represented by Sri.B.A. Ramesh Babu, Adv)

V/s

The Manager Life Insurance Corporation
Jeevan Bheema Nagara,

Branch White Field,

Division No.36,

Bengaluru-560075.                               ……OPPOSITE PARTY

*****

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SMT. REKHA SAYANNAVAR, MEMBER

          The present case is filed U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act-2019 with a prayer to return the excess amount of                 Rs.8,860/- collected by the opposite party along with interest and to pay Rs.25,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% towards damages and further direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.25,000/-towards the litigation charges and grant such other reliefs.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under;

          The complainant is the senior citizen and a homemaker. She had purchased the medical policy from the LIC bearing number 360801292 on 25.07.2003 for a term of 15 years and the sum assured was Rs.50,000/-. On the basis of quarterly payment of Rs.981/- for every year starting from the month of 25.07.2003 to 25.04.2018. 

        3. In total the complainant has paid Rs.58,860/-                           (Rs.981X4 months = for 15 years) to the opposite party till 25.04.2018. On 31.08.2018 opposite party had issued a letter informing that the said policy has matured and ready to pay only Rs.79,849/- calculating to sum assured of Rs.50,000/- with vested Bonus of Rs.29,850/-only after the surrender of the original policy and accordingly the opposite party has made the payment of Rs.79,849/-to the complainant’s account. The complainant on 25.07.2018 made a requisition letter to the opposite party and informed they have collected an excess amount of Rs.8,860/-and kept on making the same request to the opposite party but opposite party had not taken any action, just ignored all the request applications given by the complaint and this caused mental agony and stress and financial loss to the complainant. The complainant finally Issued a legal notice  dated 19.11.2018  and the opposite party has given a reply to the said legal notice on 21.11.2018  contended the same  that they have already made the payment  and ignored the return of excess amount claimed by the complainant. The complainant left with no other alternative but to approach this commission. Hence, this complaint.

4. The counsel for the complainant had filed an affidavit in the form of her evidence EX.P1 to P8 marked. Opposite party despite the service of notice did not participate in the proceedings and placed ex-parte.

5. Heard the arguments of the counsel for the complainant.

6. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:

i) Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service of the opposite party?

ii) If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled for?

iii) What order?

     7.  Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :  In affirmative

Point No.2 :  Partly in affirmative

Point No.3 :  As per the final order for the following;

REASONS

8. POINT NO.1 and 2:- To avoid the repetition of facts of the case we have discussed point number-one and two together. PW1 had reiterated the facts of the case. On perusal EX.P1 which is the policy and EX.P8 that is 27 original receipts of payment made by the complainant to the opposite party towards the said policy. All these points shows that the complainant had paid 58, 860/-for a term of 15 years. The complainant has contended that as per the policy EX.P1 and EX.P2 that is discharge voucher dated on 31.08.2018 and EX.P7 that is reply to the legal notice of the complainant, that maturity amount payable is a “sum   assured” that is 50,000/- and “vested bonus” amount to Rs.29,850/- In total Rs.79,850/-.It clearly shows that they have not taken into the consideration of the excess amount of Rs.8,860/- and not even said anything in their reply letter EX.P7 and EX.P2 discharge voucher. But in  the requisition letter of the complainant to the opposite party dated 28.08.2018 before the issuance of discharge voucher dated 31.08.2018 she clearly mentioned the collection of excess amount of Rs.8,860/-. Even after also the complainant has made several request letters dated 18.09.2018, 30.11.2018 etc., and requested the same. In reply to the complainant’s requests the opposite party in EX.P 7 has sent the same reply to the complainant on 31.08. 2018 before issuance of legal notice of the complainant and contended that the maturity sum was Rs.79,850/- payable to the complainant and accordingly made the payment to the complainant. We have observed that the complainant obtained the said policy EP1 and accordingly made payments to the opposite party as per EX.P8. Thus it shows the unfair trade practice as defined U/s 2 (47) of CP Act-2019 followed by the opposite party despite several requests to the opposite party by the complainant even before the issuance of policy discharge voucher. It amounts to the deficiency of service on part of the opposite party. The opposite party being the renowned largest LIC Company of India which provides wide range life insurance plans. Which didn’t consider the request of the complainant since 2018 is liable to pay the compensation to the complainant. Further the complainant is entitled to the excess amount paid of Rs.8,860/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 25.07.2018 along with compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the litigation. Hence, we answer point No.1 in affirmative and point No.2 partly in affirmative.

       9. POINT NO.3:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The complaint is allowed in part.

The opposite party is directed to return the excess amount of Rs.8,860/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to the complainant from the date of the policy matured i.e. 25.07.2018.

Further the opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- cost of the litigation.                                                                                              

If the opposite party fails to comply the order within 30 days, the above said amount of Rs.25,000/- carries interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.

  Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement. 

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 30^th day of AUGUST, 2022)                                            

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)  (RAJU K.S)   (SHIVARAMA, K)    
•  

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainants side:

          Smt. Premalatha, who being the complainant has filed her affidavit.

Documents marked for the complainant side:

  1) Copy of the policy bearing No.360801292.

  2) Copy of the discharge voucher dt.31.08.2018.

  3) Copy of the Letter of complainant dt.28.08.2018.

  4) Copy of another letter of complainant dt.18.09.2018.

  5) Copy of another  letter of complainant dt.30.11.2018.

  6) Copy of the Legal notice dt.19.11.2018.

  7) Copy of the reply letter dt.21.11.2018.

  8) Copy of the (27) receipts.

 Witness examined for the opposite party side:         

Documents marked for the Opposite Parties side:

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA, K)    
•