- ::: C O M M O N - O R D E R ::: -

1. The complainants have filed these complaints u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opponents 1 and 2 for the deficiency of service and for a direction to restore the policies along with a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and court costs as detailed in the complaint.


2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:-
The complainants have obtained the insurance policies bearing Nos.624915419 in complaint No.214/2008 and 624915295 in complaint No.215/2008 respectively from the 2nd opponent through the 1st opponent, who is an agent to the 2nd opponent and they have paid premium through cheque dtd.28.03.2007 and 30.03.2007 respectively. But so far as the opponents have not sent the policy bond to the complainants and have only issued an intimation slip to the complainant and stated that the policy bonds have been received by the 1st opponent. But the 2nd opponent has to sent the policy bond to the policy holders directly and not through the agents. Therefore, the 2nd opponent is at deficiency of service and showed negligence in discharging the duties by not sending the policy bonds to the complainants directly. The 2nd opponent caused inconvenience to the complainants in paying the premium in time and subsequently, the 2nd opponent issued a policy lapse intimation letter dtd.05.05.2008. The complainants have no knowledge about the payment of premiums as because they have not received policy bonds from the opponents. As such they have suffered heavy loss and due to the negligence on the part of the opponents, the complainant has suffered mentally and he is ready to pay the policy premium and to keep the policy in force. In this regard they have issued a legal notice dtd.06.09.2008 to restore the policy and to continue the same. But the opponents have not taken any action in this regard. Hence, there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opponents and prays for the reliefs as prayed above along with the compensation.

3. After the service of the notices, the 1st and 2nd opponents have appeared through their counsel and filed their versions. The 1st opponent in his version has contended that after the payment of first premium he has received L.I.C. bonds from the 2nd opponent and delivered it to the wife of the complainant Santhosh Kumar on 15.04.2007 and received an endorsement from her and he has informed about further payment of premiums through telephone to the complainant. But the complainant has failed to pay the premium. Hence, the said policy was lapsed. But even now the opponents are ready to revive the policy. He further contended that he and the complainant in 215/2008 are the co-brothers and due to their personal rivalry, he has filed this false complaint and in order to take back the premium amount he has filed this false complaint against him. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of him. Hence, he prays for the dismissal of the complaint.


4. The 2nd opponent has filed their version and contended that after the receipt of the cheque dtd.28.03.2007 and 30.03.2007 they have issued policy bonds to the 1st opponent, who is their agent and he has personally delivered the same to the complainant H.M. Santhosh Kumar’s wife Vidya under proper acknowledgement and the complainants have authorized the said 1st opponent to collect the bonds personally from them. As such, the wife of the complainant has endorsed for the receipt of bonds also and therefore, there is no deficiency of service and they further contended that they have also issued an intimation to the complainants for the payment of premium for the year 2008. But they have not chosen to pay the premium in the stipulated period. As such the policies were lapsed. After the receipt of the lapse intimation, the complainants wrote a letter dtd.05.08.2008 intimating that he has not received any policy bonds from them. Immediately, they called 1st opponent, who is an agent for explanation. Then they came to know that it was delivered to the wife of the complainant personally. Subsequently, they received the said bonds from the said Vidya and delivered the bonds to the complainants through registered post on 09.09.2008. Even inspite of receipt of the bonds also, the complainants have not paid the premium amounts and got the policy revive. As such, there is no cause of action and they are ready to revive the said policies subject to the complainant complying with the conditions of the revival and subject to payment of premium and other charges. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service and prays for the dismissal of the complaint.


5. We heard the arguments advanced by both the parties’ counsels.


6. Now, the points that arise for consideration of this Forum are as follows:-

i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of
the 1st and 2nd opponents?
ii) If so, whether the complainants are entitled to the
reliefs as sought?
iii) What Order?


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

i) Point No.1: In the Negative.

ii) Point No.2: In the Negative.

iii) Point No.3: See, as per order below

- ::: R E A S O N S ::: -


8. Point No.1: There is no dispute with respect to the policy taken by the complainants and only dispute raised by the complainants is that due to non sending the policy bonds directly to them by the 2nd opponent, they are unable to continue the policy.


9. On contrary, the 2nd opponent in his version contended that they are ready to revive the policy subject to the payment of premium and other charges. Such being the case, it is not necessary to discuss the personal matters of the complainants and the 1st opponent and when the complainants have authorized 1st opponent to receive the policy bonds from the 2nd opponent, they cannot allege that the 2nd opponent is bound to send the policy bonds directly to them. As such, we found no deficiency of service on the part of the opponents. Considering the policy revival undertaken by the 2nd opponent, the complainants are directed to revive the policy as prayed them. Under these circumstances, the complaints filed by the complainants are liable to be dismissed. For the above said reasons, we answer these point Nos.1 and 2 in the Negative.


10. Point No.3: In view of our findings on above points the complaints filed by the complainants have to be dismissed. In the result we pass the following order.
- :::O R D E R::: -


1. The complaints filed by the complainants against the opponents is hereby dismissed.
2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.