SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
Complainant filed complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking to get an order directing opposite parties to pay the amount under the policy along with its accrued benefit to the beneficiary of the policy Mr. Anil Kumar together with Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.
The facts in brief that the complaint has subscribed a policy namely Jeevan adhar in his name and life assured and the beneficiary being Sri Anil Kumar V (physically and mentally in a disadvantageous position) effective from 20/03/2001. The complainant informed by OP NO.1 through his agent that initially he can avail of tax benefits (80DD) and after maturity, the benefits will go to Sri Anil Kumar K V. But now it has been informed by OPNO.2 that only after the death of life assured, the maturity amount will pass on to the beneficiary. The policy is matured by 2021. Since then, this complainant was appealing OPs to close this policy and the benefits be transferred other beneficiary. Now Sri. Anil Kumar needs urgent financial support as he is not fit enough to do any manual or mental work. This complainant is doubtful as to whether the beneficiary will get the benefit of this policy, if LIC strictly endorsees its policy contracts. Even at his 49th age, he is still unmarried, unemployed and lives depending on the state disability pension which is also regularly irregular. No this complainant is not able to support as the family of beneficiary did earlier, as he become a pensioner. Hence the complaint.
After receiving notice, OP filed version stating its contentions that the insurance policy taken by the life assured ie, the complainant herein is a whole life limited payment policy namely Jeevan adhar and it is effective from 28/03/2001 and premium payable as Rs.2,904/- yearly and sum assured is 50,000/-. The status of the said policy is fully paid up and the complainant had remitted 20 yearly installments. In fact that LIC of India has designated this policy solely for the benefit of handicapped dependants under the special provision of Income Tax Act 1995. It is submitted that despite this policy is meant for the benefit of handicapped dependants, the very core of the policy is that it is on the life of the insured this policy is issued and not on the life of the dependent handicapped. Further submitted that this policy is to provide a lump sum payment and an annuity to the handicapped dependents in case of untimely death of the person assured. Further submits that the death claim amount of the said policy would be paid to the nominee under the policy by partly 20 percentage in lump sum and balance 80 percentage in the form of annuity, for the benefit of the handicapped dependent. Moreover another factor is that under this plan, there will be no maturity claim after completion of age 80 years like other whole life limited payment policies. This plan provides for guaranteed addition @Rs.100/- up to life assureds’ age of 65 years even though premium paying term is over. Under this policy there is no option for payment of loan or surrender value. Further benefits payable under the policy and the events on the happening of which they are payable can very well be assessed from the schedule part of the policy bond which is the basis of the insurance contract and the same is stated as Ext.B1here. In this policy life assureds’ wife K V Jayamala is the nominee as per question No. 2A of the proposal form. As per policy conditions the claim will be payable on the death of the complainant to the nominee Smt. K V Jayamala, for the benefit of the handicapped dependent. Death claim amount will be paid partly 20 % in lump sum and balance 80% in the form of annuity to the nominee, for the benefit of the handicapped dependent. Since the policy holder who is the complainant herein is still alive, as per the policy conditions nothing would be payable as on date. This policy does not have maturity claim. The provisions of maturity claim under whole life policies ie, after completing the age of 80 years by life assured, is not applicable under this policy. Representations were received for allowing his annuity payments for the side disabled dependent before the death of parents/life assured after certain age. But CBT/ Government of India have refused to do so. Hence no benefit can be paid to the dependant till the proposer/complainant survives. So here no deficiency in service e can be attribute dot the acts of these OPs. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
At the evidence stage, complainant filed chief-affidavit and documents. Examined as Pw1. Marked policy as Ext.A1 and letter given by OP to complainant dated 12/05/2023 as Ext.A2. On the side of OP, Manager of OP company filed chief-affidavit and was examined as Dw1. Ext.B1 to B5 were marked. After that the learned counsel of OP filed argument note and judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court writ petitionNo.1107 of 2017 Ravi Agrawal Vs. Union of India and Another.
We have perused the documents on file, the letter sent by OP to complainant. It is an admitted fact that complainant has subscribed a policy namely Jeevan adhar in his name as life assured and the beneficiary being Sri Anil Kumar K V effective from 20/03/2001 and premium payable as Rs.2,904/- yearly. Further sum assured is Rs.50,000/-. Further date of last payment of premium as on 20/03/2020 ie. (20 years). As per the policy, name of Handicapped dependent is Mr. K V Anil Kumar.
OP Insurance Company contended that LIC of India has designated this policy solely for the benefit of handicapped dependants under the special provision of Income Tax Act 1995. It is submitted that despite this policy is meant for the benefit of handicapped dependants, the very core of the policy is that it is on the life of the insured this policy is issued and not on the life of the dependent handicapped. Further submitted that this policy is to provide a lump sum payment and an annuity to the handicapped dependents in case of untimely death of the person assured. Further submits that the death claim amount of the said policy would be paid to the nominee under the policy by partly 20 percentage in lump sum and balance 80 percentage in the form of annuity, for the benefit of the handicapped dependent. Moreover another factor is that under this plan, there will be no maturity claim after completion of age 80 years like other whole life limited payment policies. This plan provides for guaranteed addition @Rs.100/- up to life assureds’ age of 65 years even though premium paying term is over. Under this policy there is no option for payment of loan or surrender value. Further benefits payable under the policy and the events on the happening of which they are payable can very well be assessed from the schedule part of the policy bond which is the basis of the insurance contract and the same is stated as Ext.B1here. In this policy life assureds’ wife K V Jayamala is the nominee as per question No. 2A of the proposal form. As per policy conditions the claim will be payable on the death of the complainant to the nominee Smt. K V Jayamala, for the benefit of the handicapped dependent. Death claim amount will be paid partly 20 % in lump sum and balance 80% in the form of annuity to the nominee, for the benefit of the handicapped dependent. Since the policy holder who is the complainant herein is still alive, as per the policy conditions nothing would be payable as on date.
Ext.B3 is the reply given by OP Corporation to the complainant about the letter regarding the benefits under the policy.
In Ext.B3 OP corporation informed the complainant about the benefits payable under the policy can be done “only in consultation with CBDT and Government of India”.
In Ext.B1 the policy terms and conditions specified in the insurance certificate states that the death claim amount of the said policy would be paid to the nominee under the policy by partly 20 percentage in lump sum and balance 80 percentage in the form of annuity, for the benefit of the handicapped dependent. Moreover another factor is that under this plan, there will be no maturity claim after completion of age 80 years like other whole life limited payment policies. This plan provides for guaranteed addition @Rs.100/- up to life assureds’ age of 65 years even though premium paying term is over. Under this policy there is no option for payment of loan or surrender value. Further benefits payable under the policy and the events on the happening of which they are payable can very well be assessed from the schedule part of the policy bond which is the basis of the insurance contract.
During cross-examination Pw1 states that he had not read the terms and conditions in the policy Ext.B1. But on analysis of the deposition given by Pw1, we can realize that the Life Assured (complainant) have knowledge of the terms and conditions envisaged in Ext.B1 policy. It is a fact that complainant is an educated man and was working as college professor at the time of taking of this policy.
It is evident that the policy in dispute was under the special provision of Income Tax Act 1995 (80DD of Income Tax Act).
The learned counsel of OP submitted Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in writ petition No.1107 of 2017 and order of 2nd appeal dated 27/06/2019. In which Hon’ble Apex court on 03/01/2019 held that though directed Union of India to re-look into the disputed provision by taking into consideration all the aspects, in the 1st appeal, no action in further was taken by Union of India. In the 2nd appeal Hon’ble Supreme court held that (on 18/08/2020) the matter was sub-judice.
The latest position ie. any further alteration was made, is not before us. So on the basis of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court, it is for the legislature to take care of these aspects and to provide suitable provision in making necessary amendment in section 80DD of the Act.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case and from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above discussed Judgment, we are not in a position to give other directions than given by the Hon’ble Apex court.
So this complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Exts.
A1- Policy
A2- Letter given by OP to complainant dated 12/05/2023
B1- Policy bond
B2-Proposal form
B3-Letter sent to the complainant by OP
B4- Booklet showing the details of the policy Jeevan adhar 114
B5- Authorization letter
Pw1-Complainant
Dw1- OP1
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forwarded by order/
Assistant Registrar
