Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

91/2014

M/s.V.Viji, W/o.S.Vetrivel, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.G.Baskar

09 Apr 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  27.03.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  09.04.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

MONDAY THE 09^th  DAY OF APRIL 2018

 

C.C.NO.91/2014

 

Mrs.V.Viji,

W/o S.Vetrivel,

No.645/646 Arihant Galaxy,

D.No.6C, 6^th Floor,

T.H.Road,Tondiarpet,

Chennai – 600 081.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.The Regional Manager,

LIC of India, Southern Zonal Office,

LIC Building,

153, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

 

2. The Zonal Manager,

LIC Customer Zone – Chennai,

Armenian Street,Parrys Corner,

Chennai – 600 001.

 

3.The Branch Manager,

LIC of India,

Thiruvottiyur Branch Office,

No.85-A, T.H.Road,

Thiruvottiyur,

Chennai – 600 019.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 08.05.2014

Counsel for Complainant                       : M/s. G.Baskar, S.Muruganandam,

                                                                 S.Malayappan         

 

Counsel for Opposite Parties                    : M.B.Gopalan, N.Vijayaraghavan,

                                                                 M.B.Raghavan

 

O R D E R

 

BY  MEMBER THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to refund the policy premium amount paid for a period with interest and to pay compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practices, mental agony and hardship with cost of Complaint  u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

           The Complainant states that she had taken a Life Insurance Policy bearing No.718413343 from the 3^rd Opposite Party on 14.08.2007.It is of 20 years in term, and she has to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as premium installment amount bi-yearly, and the same was paid by ECS from her bank account. She states that the premium amount of Rs.5,000/- was not collected by the 3^rd Opposite Party which falls on 14.08.2012. So she approached the 3^rd Opposite Party ‘in person’ and asked for the reason. The 3^rd Opposite Party gave a shocking news that the policy has been surrendered and encashed. But the Complainant never made any attempt to surrender her policy. She also checked her policy states through internet and shocked by the status ‘surrendered/ discounted claim’.

          2. She represented to the 3^rd Opposite Party by letter dated 21.12.2012 and the same was neglected and not replied though they received by RPAD.  So she was unable to ‘continue’ her said policy and Opposite Party put her in ‘irreparable’ loss.  Her hard earned money paid as premium from 14.08.2007 to 24.01.2012 has gone in vein. So she therefore sent a legal notice dated 18.09.2013 through RPAD to restore her policy No.718413343 and to pay compensation. But the Opposite Party’s neglected her notice and replied evasively. She again sent a legal reminder dated 25.10.2013 by RPAD  and they sent reply, requiring the complainant to mention policy numbers. Therefore the Complainant filed this Complaint to direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- paid by her and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the cost of this Complaint.

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          Opposite Parties legal department state that the mistake was committed by another policy holder K.Prabhuraj. He mentioned 718413343 instead of 718413543 while surrendering his policy. Hence, the Complainant’s policy was marked as surrendered in the computer system and the same was rectified and was set right before the Complaint was filed.  The Opposite Parties state that a mistake cannot be taken advantage for claiming compensation that too after it has been rectified. The Opposite Parties states that the premium was payable half-yearly and was been paid by her directly. It was not through ECS as alleged.  The Opposite Parties state that the surrender payment of Rs.42,908/- vide cheque No.136012 dated 24.01.2012 was returned even sent to the address mentioned in the policy. Now the cheque was stale. The Opposite Parties state that on receipt of the communication from the Complainant in December 2012 the error was identified. For various IT security reasons it cannot be accomplished at short notice.  The policy was set right from ‘surrender’ to ‘in force’ and Complainant may pay the premium due without any late fee was informed via letter dated 09.11.2013. Thus the Opposite Parties remedied the error before the Complaint was filed.

          4. The Opposite Parties admits that the attempt by the Complainant to pay the premium for August 2012 online failed because of the wrong surrender entry made in the computer system. There was no loss caused to the Complainant as alleged. The mistake has been remedied and the policy has been restored without any monetary loss to the Complainant. By allowing the Complainant to pay the premium without any late payment fee the monetary loss was avoided to the Complainant. The mention of “kindly mention policy no” is a general and standard word for which no exception can be taken. The Opposite Parties state that the various relief sought especially refund of premium of Rs.50,000/- is unsustainable. The company has run the risk for the premium received from sum 2007 – 2012.  So it is prayed by Opposite Parties that the Complaint may be dismissed with exemplary costs.

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:    

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

6. POINT NO :1 

          The admitted fact is that the Complainant is a Ex.A1 policy holder of the Opposite Parties. They received premium of Rs.5,000/- bi-yearly from 14.08.2007 and it was regular. The Complainant cannot make a payment of premium on August 2012, because of the reason that the policy has been closed by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant approached Opposite Parties in person by August 2012 but the problem was not fixed by the Opposite Parties. After several reminders and legal notice only her policy is revived and came ‘in force’. It took about ’15 months’ time from the first Complaint. 

          7. The policy is unit linked Life Insurance Policy i.e the Complainant took a policy to cover the risk of her life. Since life is uncertain and it cannot be rectified when something happened. So, the risk cover job of the Opposite Party is more responsible than others. The 15 months delay in rectifying the mistake shows the deficiency in service. If anything  happened in the above period what will be the status of the cover taken by them that has been closed by the Opposite Parties.

          8. The surrendered application submitted by a person with wrong hundredth place ‘3’ instead of ‘7’ made all the mistakes consequently. But a surrender application has to be scrutinized very seriously and has to be checked at least twice.

          1. The surrender applicant is male but the policy holder Complainant is female.

2. The very much name is different.

          3. The tenure of the policy varies

          4. The value of the policy varies.

          5. Address of the applicant is different from the policy and surrender application. 

So it is very clear that the surrender application was considered without any seriousness. So the mistake was happened on Opposite Parties side and it shows the negligence of the Opposite Parties.

          9. The learned council for opposite parties relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court of India reported in IV(2004) CPJ 26(SC) (Haryana Urban Development Authority vs Dr. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal) held that compensation must co-relate with the amount of loss or injury and in case in hand there was no loss to the complainant, since the policy was rectified before filing the complaint and therefore the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service. The opposite parties admit that the complainant policy was wrongly surrendered, only after the complainant brought to their knowledge about the wrong surrender on several occasions and the complainant was unable to pay her premium due to the act of the opposite parties. The complainant unable to continue to pay the policy is a loss to the complainant and that is why she could not able to continue the policy as the same was rectified only after 15 months. Therefore in such circumstances the above referred judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not apply to the facts of the case in hand.

10. An another order of the national commission reported in 2012 (3) CPR 363(NC) (S.R. Sundaram vs The Asst General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors) referred to support the case of the opposite parties . In that case the consumer withdrew only once a sum of Rs.15,000/- through ATM and however the machine recorded twice the same amount and the consumer made complaint and rectified the mistake within 4 days. Here the opposite parties took 15 months to rectify the defect and the complainant unable to continue his policy and therefore the order of the Hon’ble National Commission also do not apply to the facts of the case.

11. The opposite parties specifically contended that before filing the complaint the defect was rectified and hence their act cannot be termed as deficiency. The complainant wrote Ex.A4 letter dated 21.12.2012 to the 3^rd opposite party to rectify the defect. Thereafter the opposite parties took nearly 1 year time and from the date of negligent act 15 months to rectify the defects. During this interregnum period the complainant suffered a lot. In view of that before filing the complaint the policy was set right cannot be reason to reject the complaint. Therefore, we hold that the complainant proved that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in rendering service to the complainant.

12. POINT NO:2

           The complainant paid premium from 14.08.2007 on a biyearly basis. According to her she paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards total premium till she was unable to pay the premium. This was not disputed by the opposite parties. The complainant was unable to pay further premium or continue the policy only due to the negligent act of the opposite parties. In view of the same, the complainant seeks the refund of the premium paid by her is justifiable and hence the opposite parties can be directed to refund the premium amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. Due to the negligent act of the opposite parties the complainant suffered with mental agony is accepted and for the same the opposite parties can be directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 jointly or severally are ordered to refund a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards the premium amount to the Complainant and  also  to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards the cost of the Complaint.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said premium amount and compensation amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 09^th  day of April 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 14.08.2007                   LIC policy bearing No.7184133343

 

Ex.A2 dated NIL                     Premium installment receipts paid by the

                                                   Complainant

 

Ex.A3 dated NIL                     Policy status report

 

Ex.A4 dated 21.12.2012                   Letter send by the Complainant to the 3^rd Opposite

                                                   Party

 

Ex.A5 dated NIL                     Postal receipt and acknowledgment card

 

Ex.A6 dated 18.09.2013                   Legal Notice to the Opposite Parties

 

Ex.A7 dated 24.09.2013                   Reply notice to the Complainant by the Opposite

                                                   Parties 

 

Ex.A8 dated 25.09.2013                   Reply Notice to the Complainant by the 3^rd

                                                   Opposite Party

 

Ex.A9 dated 25.10.2013                   Legal notice to the Opposite Parties

 

 

Ex.A10 dated 31.10.2013                 Reply Notice from the Opposite Party to the

                                                   Complainant

 

Ex.A11 dated 09.11.2013                 Reply notice from the Opposite Party to the

                                                   Complainant

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

Ex.B1 dated 13.01.2012                   Surrender Application of Mr.K.Prabhuraj

 

Ex.B2 dated 25.01.2012                   Letter with cheque in favour of the Complainant

                                                   for surrender payment

 

Ex.B3 dated 24.01.2012                   Copy of cheque

 

Ex.B4 dated 07.02.2012                   Returned cover

 

Ex.B5 dated 09.11.2013                   Letter sent by Opposite Parties intimating

                                                    rectification of policy status.

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT