DATE OF FILING: 22.03.2017
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 05.05.2018
Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, President.
The complainant Rabindranath Jena has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party ( in short the O.P.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant had taken insurance policy under a salary saving scheme bearing policy No.570720431 commenced on 15.07.2001 for sum assured Rs.50,000/- with a monthly premium of Rs.351/-from his salary for a period of 15 years and started recovery regularly from monthly salary by the employer who acted like an agent of the LIC. When the policy was due to be matured on 15.07.2016 the O.P. herein on 13.06.2016 directed the complainant to submit the discharges voucher, original bond alongwith other forms to release the matured final amount and in obedience to the direction of the O.P. the complainant furnished all the original documents and papers to the O.P. and on 04.07.2016 the O.P. intimated about the final matured amount of Rs.81,347/- and subsequently on 01.08.2016 the O.P. intimated the final amount of Rs.80,645/- and accordingly credited the amount in the bank account of the complainant on the same day instead of making payment of assured and promised insurance money of Rs.1,00,000/- and thus the company has violated his promise as assured for payment in favour of this complainant and there has been shortfall/deficiency of Rs.19,355/- since the payment was Rs.80,645/- instead of Rs.1,00,000/- by the O.P. After several correspondence and legal notice by the complainant on 24.12.2016 and 28.02.2017, the O.P. (LIC) has not paid the deficiency amount of Rs.19,355/-. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the complainant prayed to direct the O.P. to make payment of Rs.19,355/- alongwith damages, compensation and legal expenses to the tune of Rs.50,000/- in the best interest of justice.
3. Upon notice the O.P. filed version through his advocate. It is stated that Rabindranath Jena the complainant had taken an insurance policy under a salary saving scheme bearing policy No. 570720431 commenced on 15.07.2001 for sum assured Rs.50,000/- with a monthly premium of Rs.351/- from this O.P. Upon maturity of the said policy, the complainant was supposed to receive Rs.50,000/- as sum assured +Rs.30,400/- as Bonus on the sum assured +Rs.2000/- as interim bonus, totally Rs.82,400/- only. However, due to non receipt of premiums for the month of 09/2001, 10/2001, 11/2001 and 06/2008 and 06/2016by this O.P. the said amount was deducted from the final payment payable under the policy. Thus, the net amount of Rs.80,645/- has already been credited to the account of the complainant/policy holder. As the O.P. have never promised to pay Rs.1,00,000/- under the policy, the further claim for Rs.19,355/- is speculative and baseless. As this O.P. has already paid the full maturity amount, it is not liable to pay anything more as claimed by the complainant. Hence this O.P. prayed to dismiss the case in the interest of justice.
4. On the date of final hearing we heard argument from the advocate of both sides at length. We perused the complaint petition, written version, written argument, documents and citation available in the case record. We perused the photo copy of LIC policy No. 570720431 which was for sum assured of Rs.50,000/-. The complainant furnished all the original documents and papers to the O.P. and on 04.07.2016 the O.P. intimated about the final matured amount of Rs.81,347/- and subsequently on 01.08.2016 the O.P. intimated the final amount is Rs.80,645/- and accordingly credited the amount in the bank account of the complainant on the same day. But it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant is a consumer of the O.Ps under salary saving scheme, as such it is presumed that all the premiums of the complainant have already been deducted from his salary.
5. Law is well settled that “Where premium for LIC policy was to be remitted from salary and failure in remittance was for no fault of insured and employer was liable for that fault, employee being agent of LIC, Corporation was liable to pay policy amount” as has been held by National CDR Commission, New Delhi reported in 2009 CPR 144.
6. On foregoing discussion and in view of the aforesaid citation, we hold that the O.P. is negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence in our considered view there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
As a result, the complainant’s case is partly allowed on contest against the O.P. The O.P. is directed to pay five months unpaid premium amount with Bonus and up-to-date interest as per IRDA Rules alongwith Rs.2000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within one month from receipt of this order, failing which all the dues shall carry 12% interest per annum.
The order is pronounced on this day of 5th May 2018 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
