Karnataka

Bidar

CC/103/2014

Krishnabai w/o Ravindra Kulkarni - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC Bidar & Others - Opp.Party(s)

S M shetkar

27 Jul 2016

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                C.C.No. 103/2014

                                                                                      Date of filing : 11/12/2014

                                                                                  Date of disposal : 27/07/2016   

 

 

P R E S E N T:-                 (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B,

                                                                                                       President.

    

                                         (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                      B.A.LL.B.

                                                                                  Member.

 

                                               

COMPLAINANT:-          Krishnabai, w/o Ravindra Kulkarni,                                                           

                                         Age: 67 years, Occ: Pensioner, ,

                                      R/o MIG-30, Hudco, KHB Colony,

                                      Janwada road, Bidar.

 

                                     (By Shri. S.M. Shetkar, Advocate)

 

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

 

OPPONENT/S   :-            1. The Branch Manager,

                                          Life Insurance Corporation of India,

                                          Branch Office, Near Railway station,

                                          Jeevan Beema road, Bidar.

 

                                      2. The Senior Divisional Manager,

                                          Life Insurance Corporation of India,

                                          “ AMRUT PRAKASH” Divisional Office,

                                          Raichur.

 

 

 

                                  ( O.P.No.1& 2  By Shri. Basavaraj Udgir, Advocate)

                                       

 

 

                                        

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

::   J UD G M E N T  : :

 

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

 

                The complainant, a senior citizen has approached this Forum U/s.12 of the C.P.Act., alleging deficiency of service in the part of the O.Ps., claiming compensation, damages and other ancillary benefits.

 

 

2.         Brief facts of the case of the complainant are that:

 

            The, she had purchased a “Bima Bachat “policy from the O.P. corporation on 27-03-2006, by paying single premium of Rs. 3,01,295-00.  The sum assured was Rs. 4,20,000/- and date of maturity was 28-03-2015, as per the terms incidental to the policy conditions.

 

3.         As per her further pleadings, she had availed a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from the O.P. Corporation on 24-10-2008.  As per the terms of the policy, a sum of Rs. 63,000/- was disbursed to her after three years and the amount was adjusted towads the outstanding loan.  She availed a further loan of Rs. 45,430/-,  on 09-05-2009, aggregating her principal loan amount at Rs. 2,44,000/- as on the said date.    

4.            The complainant further avers that, in the month of April,2012 she enquired with the O.P.no.1, about the survival benefit ( 2^nd due ) but was informed that, the policy was foreclosed on 14-12-2010 without any intimation to her.  She issued a letter on 29-06-2012, which was received by the O.P.no.1 on 04-07-2012 and the later replied on 05-07-2012, to the effect that, as on 14-12-2010, her loan amount with interest stood at Rs. 2,80,881/-far exceeding the amount of surrender value of the policy and hence, against the default of the loan amount or interest thereon, the policy was foreclosed without any intimation.  The complainant approached the O.P.no.2, controlling organ of O.P.no.1 vide a letter dt. 06-09-2012 but was informed vide a letter dt. 09-07-2013 that, the calculations of O.P.no.1 holds good, but was given an option to reinstate the policy by clearing the outstanding loan amount.  She states to have approached the O.P.no.1 but was met with a refusal of any further entertainment.  (sic-no proof of such approach provided).

5.               The complainant canvasses that, the foreclosure resorted to by the O.Ps were illegal, without notice, and she was due for a sum of Rs. 2,75,685/- and having been paid single premium of Rs. 3,01,295/-, she was entitled for excess amount of Rs. 25,610/- from the O.Ps.  She, therefore, claims the amount aforesaid together with survival benefits @ Rs. 1,750/- p.m. for 20 months aggregating to Rs.35,000/- and compensation etc.  The O.Ps. after Court notice have appeared through the counsel of their choice and have filed written versions denying the charges levied, further pleading delay in filing the complaint.

6.              Both sides have filed documents as spelled out at the end of this order, justifying their respective stands, so also evidence affidavits and written arguments.

7               Giving our anxious considerations to the pleadings of the parties, the following points arise for our considerations.  In spite of the fact that, the O.P. had failed to produce the copy of the assignment deed, and an adverse inference was taken on their failure to do so vide order dt.13-07-2016.  We are utterly dismayed that, the O.Ps being a national organisation have been complacent to deal with the case properly and diligently.

 

 

 

 

POINTS TO CONSIDER

 

1. Is the complaint barred by time?

 

2. Does the complainant prove that, she is entitled for the relief(s) asked for ?

 

3. Do the O.Ps prove that, they were justified in refusing the claims of the complainant due to violation of the policy conditions?

  

 

4. What orders ?

 

 

 

 

 

8.    Our findings to the above points are as under:

       1.  In the negative.

       2.  In the negative.

       3.  In the affirmative  owing to the following;  

                                             

:: R E A S O N S : :

 

9.          In the instant case, the complainant’s claims having been repudiated by the Bidar Branch of the corporation, she had poured out her grievances before the higher entity i.e. O.P.no.2 vide hear application dt. 06-09-2012 (Ex.P.4) and some other letter dt. 04-07-2013( copy not produced).  Responding to her representation the O.P.no.2 had replied her vide letter dt. 09-07-2013 (Ex.P.5) reiterating the stand of Bidar Branch of the corporation, however, giving her an option of reinstatement of the policy.  It is different matter that, the complainant claims to had approached the Bidar branch for aforesaid reinstatement proposal, but the O.P.no.1 did not act upon the same.  Sadly, the complainant has not produced any proof  before us, substantiating such approach, contingent upon which the final order would have ended differently.  The fact but remains, the last cause of action accrued in favour of the complainant on 09-07-2013 by virtue of Ex.P.5.  The complaint having been filed in the year 2014, is well within time and the defence of delay is struck off and we answer the point no.1 in the negative.

 

10.               Point no. 2 and 3 being webbed together, we propose to answer them collectively.

 

                   As per the case in hand, the facts remain undisputed, the complainant had obtained the policy under Table 175 for 9 years by paying a single premium of Rs. 3,01,295/- for maturity value of Rs. 4,20,000/- ( as per Ex.R.1) on 27-03-2006.  It is also in the admission of the complainant that, she availed a loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the corporation by pledging the policy on 24-10-2008.  A sum of Rs. 63,000/- got accrued to her during the year 2009 and same was adjusted towards her loan, reducing the principal amount after adjusting the interest.  She also, admits to have availed further loan of Rs. 45,430/- on 09-05-2009, in the process escalating her borrowings to a sum of Rs. 2,44,000/-.  This corollary of events ipsofacto proves, she was well aware of the pros and cons of the transactions.

 

11.            After availing the 2^nd loan on 09-05-2009, she neither cared to pay the interest or anything towards the principal amount till April,2012, oblivious of her obligations and only then approached the corporation.

 

12.              By, 14-12-2010, her loan amount together with interest, compounded bi yearly stood at Rs. 2,80,881-00.  Interest specified in clause 4 (iii) of the policy conditions as per Annexure to R.1.  As per Ex.P.3, on the same date her gross surrender value of the policy stood at Rs. 2,75,685/-.  The accrued loan amount has far exceeded her entitlements.  As per para-4-clause-4 of  the policy conditions, appended to Ex.R.1, the corporation was entitled to have a lien over the policy without a notice, in the event of failure of repaying the loan or interest.  Thereby, a right had accrued to the O.P. corporation as on 14-12-2010 to forfeit the policy, and they have done so, in perfect harmony of the policy conditions, over which, the complainant has no right to lament.   It is a long standing principle of the law that, “QUI APPROBATE, NEMO REPROBATE”-who approves, cannot refute.  The age old legal maxim squarely applies to the conducts of the complainant.

 

13.                The quagmire, in this case had occurred owing to the fact that, both the parties and their learned counsels had been harping on the term “Foreclosure”instead of “Forefeiture”as spelled out in para-4 of the terms and conditions of the policy.  This deplorably indicates their indifference to the issues involved. 

 

14.               Perceiving and considering the entire issues, we therefore, pass the following:

 

 

: :   ORDER : :

 

               

1.  The  complaint filed by the  complainant is dismissed as not due.

 [

2.  We cannot endorse the defiance of the O.Ps failing to produce the copy of the assignment document in their effort to obfuscate a judicial proceeding and hence impose a punitive damage of Rs. 20,000/- acting  U/s. 14 (d) clause 2 of the C.P.Act., payable to the head of Consumer welfare Fund of the Forum.

 

 

3. There would be no order as to costs.

 

4. Four weeks time granted to the O.Ps to comply this order.

 

 

                            

  ( Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 27^th   day of July-2016 )

 

[

             Sd/-                                                                         Sd/-

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                          Sri. Jagannath Prasad                 

        Member                                                                  President

 

Documents relied upon by the complainant.

 

1. Ex.P.1- Receipt of the policy no.663501543, dt. 27-03-2006.   
2. Ex.P.2- Representation of complainant, dt.29-06-2012 to O.P.no.1    
3. Ex.P.3- Reply of O.P.no.1, dt.-05-07-2012.  
4. Ex.P.4- Copy of representation of complainant, dt.06-09-2012.
5. Ex.P.5- Letter dt. 09-07-2013 of O.P.no.2.
6. Ex.P.6- Status of report of captioned policy.
7. Ex.P.7- Acknowledgement slip of application and it’s enclosure.

Documents relied upon by the Opponent..

1. Ex.R.1- Certified copy of the policy with policy conditions         

           appended.

      2.  Ex.R.2- Details of calculations sheet pertaining to the policy of   

           the  complainant.(computer generated)

      3.  Not exhibited- Legible copy of policy conditions-distinguished       

           as  3 in red circle. 

4. Ex.R3- Enquiry voucher relating to policy no.663501543 of the      

           complainant( computer generated).

 

             Sd/-                                                                         Sd/-

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                          Sri. Jagannath Prasad                 

        Member                                                                  President