Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent is not appearing consistently.
2. This is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant is that the complainant while working under the O.P.Mills Ltd., Brajarajnagar has purchased LIC policy from OP under plan of assurance 27-25 for the period from 28.9.1984 to 28.8.2009 from the OP on payment of premium of Rs. 72.90 per month. It is alleged by the complainant that the policy was converted to policy with profit after five years of commencement of the first policy. It is alleged that on 1.10.2002 a cheque bearing No. 575221 dated 25.11.2002 for an amount of Rs.2,554/- was issued to the complainant towards refund of the excess premium deducted after surrender to which the complainant objected vide letter dated 17.1.2003. The complainant alleged that he has neither surrendered the policy nor has made any reasons to that effect. On advice of the OP complainant deposited the said amount on 18.1.2003 and the policy was revived with same terms and conditions. The mode of payment was subsequently changed from Salary Savings Scheme (‘SSS’ policy in short) to yearly payment mode. It is alleged that on 1.6.2006, OP sanctioned loan of Rs. 64,000/- against the policy applied for and paid an amount of Rs.43,215/- after deduction of amount of Rsa.20,785/- from the sanctioned amount without assigning any reason thereof. The complainant challenged the deductions stating that there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP.
4. OP filed written version stating that the policy was converted on 1.6.2006 to a policy with profit plan. It is the case of the OP that when the complainant applied for policy loan on 1.6.2006, keeping in view the interest loan for Rs.64,000/- was sanctioned in his favour. As per the arrear interest unpaid Rs.20,785/- was recovered from the loan amount and the rest of the amount was paid to the complainant. However, the allegation of the complaisant was denied by the OP and it is stated that as per the instruction of the complainant the policy and the loan policy have been acted upon.
5. The learned District Forum after hearing both parties passed the following impugned order:-
“xxx xxx xxx
Ordered that the insurer – OP (the LIC) shall refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.20,785/- illegally deducted from the amount of loan sanctioned in his favour along with interest @9% thereon with effect from 1.6.2006 up to the date of payment and an amount of Rs.500/- towards the cost of the present proceeding within one month of receipt of a copy of this order. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to payments of any compensation.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum committed error in law by not perusing the written version properly. Learned District Forum ought to have discussed the policy in question and the conduct of the complainant is concerned because the original policy has been converted later on. In toto, it is submitted that the impugned order being illegal and improper, should be set aside by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the DFR including the impugned order.
8. It is well settled in law that the complainant has to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OP.
9. It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased endowment policy from the OP. It is not in dispute that the complainant on 25.11.2002 received a cheque for Rs.2554/- towards refund of excess premium deducted after showing surrender of the policy which the complainant protested. It is submitted that since the instruction of the complainant has been followed, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP and the learned District Forum has not applied judicial mind to all these facts. The documents as submitted before the learned District Forum show that vide Annexure – 1, the original policy Bond was purchased under Plan 25-27 for Rs.50,000/- and it was reinstated on 16.11.1989. Annexure – 2 shows that the premium was increased to Rs.141.90. Annexure – 3 shows that on 1.10.2002 the excess amount under a cheque was paid to the complainant but Annexure – 4 shows that the complainant took the return of excess amount as exceptional because he has never requested for surrender of the policy. When there is no surrender of policy, the question of return of any premium does not arise. This letter is dated 17.1.2003. Subsequently, on 18.1.2003, the amount of Rs.2554/- was deposited by the complainant with the OP. Annexure – 5 shows the status report of policy No.076355346. Annexure – 6 shows the position report of SSS Policy as on 25.6.2003. Annexure – 7 shows that the complainant submitted in writing that he has left the employment since 16.11.2003 and therefore requested them to receive the premium annually from him and did not want to proceed under salary savings scheme. Annexure – 8 shows that the loan amount for Rs.64,000/- was sanctioned and out of that loan amount of Rs.43,215/- was paid but Rs.20,785 was deducted. Complainant has not filed any document to show that he has asked for loan of Rs.64,000/- against the policy. But the complaint petition shows that he has applied for the loan of Rs.64,000/-. When there is sanction of loan of Rs.64,000/- and out of that an amount of Rs.43,215/- was paid but Rs.20,785/- was not paid being deductible after adjusting interest of Rs.20,785/-, it is not clear from the letter dated 1.6.2006 as to how this amount was adjusted. There is only indication that Rs.20,785/- was deducted. It is stipulated that those amounts were deducted towards arrears and interest thereon to keep the policy survived for granting loan of Rs.64,000/-. A detail chart is also available of course handwritten filed with the written version. The learned District Forum has not applied judicial mind to the facts and case properly. Had there been evaluation of entire evidence produced by both parties, conclusion would not have been arrived in a case. None consideration of material to balance the case by learned District Forum makes the impugned order vulnerable. In such circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal stands allowed. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
The statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellant with interest accrued thereon, if any on proper identification.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties.
