DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.579 of 23-12-2013

Decided on 08-10-2015

Jasmail Kaur aged about 60 years W/o Late Sh.Hari Singh S/o Bhura Singh R/o Fatehgarh Nau Abad, (Nawa Pind), Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Life Insurance Corporation of India, Near PWD Office, Bus Stand Road, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda, through its Branch Manager/Head.

2.Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office at Urban Estate, Phase-I, Dugri, Ludhiana, through its Senior Divisional Manager.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Sunder Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Gaurav Aggarwal, counsel for opposite parties.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President:-

1. The complainant Jasmail Kaur (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Life Insurance Corporation of India and Other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the agent of opposite parties allured her husband Hari Singh to get Money Back Insurance Policy under Table Term 74-15/15 for sum assured of Rs.1 lac and advised him to deposit half yearly premiums of Rs.4178/- each for 15 years and further conveyed him that he shall get 25% of basic sum assured after every 5 years and remaining 50% amount alongwith interim bonus and final additional bonus, if any, after the expiry of 15 years and in case of death of insured during the currency of the abovesaid insurance, his LRs/Nominee shall get the basic sum assured of Rs.1 lac plus bonus accrued thereon. Accordingly, the husband of the complainant purchased the abovesaid policy bearing No.160773175 effective from 28.12.1995 upto 28.12.2010 and accordingly, he used to deposit due premiums in time. The complainant was declared as nominee in the abovesaid policy. Unluckily, the husband of the complainant died a natural death on 1.2.2008 and claim regarding his death was submitted with opposite parties by the complainant. The complainant submitted all the documents required for settlement of claim with opposite party No.1. Opposite parties paid an amount of Rs.1,03,252/- as part payment through cheque to the complainant and got her thumb impressions on some blank papers and blank printed forms.

3. It is alleged that the complainant received the status report of the abovesaid policy from opposite parties from which she came to know that she was entitled for Rs.1 lac as basic sum insured plus Rs.74,100/- as vested bonus, in total for Rs.1,74,100/- alongwith interim bonus and further came to know that opposite parties have shown net payable amount as Rs.1,61,300/- and have shown the payment of Rs.1,57,122/- as paid to her, but actually, she has received only an amount of Rs.1,03,252/- as per record of account No.18329 of her passbook, issued by Punjab & Sind Bank, Talwandi Sabo. As per the complainant, approximately a sum of Rs.71,000/- plus interim bonus is due against opposite parties since 27.2.2008. The complainant sent a registered letter dated 11.11.2013 to opposite parties requesting them to pay an amount of Rs.71,000/- plus interim bonus alongwith upto date interest @ 18% p.a., which comes to Rs.75,000/-, totaling Rs.1,46,000/- plus interim bonus, but no reply has been received by her from them till date.

4. It is further alleged that adamant act and conduct of opposite parties clearly shows that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. The complainant has suffered mental tension, agony, harassment, botheration and humiliation. As such, the complainant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- alongwith cost of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses and payment of Rs.1,46,000/- (Rs.71,000/- plus interim bonus and Rs.75,000/- as interest). Hence, this complaint.

5. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing their joint written version. In written version, opposite parties raised the legal objections that complainant is not consumer as defined under 'Act'. The complainant has taken 'Market Linked Insurance Policy', in which investment risk in investment portfolio is borne by the policyholder. The complaint is not maintainable in its present form. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the vital material facts before this Forum.

6. As per opposite parties, the complainant requested opposite parties for issuance of one policy each in her own name and other in the name of her son Sukhjinder Singh and to deduct the premiums amount of both the policies from the maturity amount of policy bearing No.160773175. The complainant has also concealed from this Forum that she took 'Single Premium ULIP Insurance Policy' bearing No.300884900 for the purpose of investment, after duly understanding the terms and conditions of the policy, contents of the proposal form and affixing her thumb impressions on the proposal form. Opposite parties sent both the insurance policies alongwith proposal forms and terms and conditions to the complainant and her son. The complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant in her complaint has raised many disputes and complicated facts, which require voluminous evidence, which cannot be adjudicated in the Forum and complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score only. The complaint has been filed with ill motive of extorting money from opposite parties. As such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with special cost. No proper court fee is paid by the complainant.

7. On merits also, opposite parties have controverted all the material averments. It is denied that the agent of opposite parties allured the husband of the complainant. It is further mentioned that Late Sh.Hari Singh, husband of the complainant purchased the insurance policy after understanding its terms and conditions and duly signing the proposal form. It is admitted that the husband of the complainant purchased the insurance policy bearing No.160773175, effective from 28.12.1995 to 28.12.2010 and complainant was declared as nominee in the abovesaid policy. It is further denied that husband of the complainant used to deposit the due premiums in time. It is admitted that insured Hari Singh has expired and nominee submitted documents for claim purpose. It is admitted that payment of Rs.1,03,252/- has been made to the complainant by opposite parties, but it is denied that opposite parties obtained the thumb impressions of the complainant on some blank papers and blank printed forms.

8. It is also pleaded that an amount of Rs.1,61,300/- was due towards the complainant on 27.2.2008. This amount included vested bonus. Bonuses ae to be paid up to termination of the insurance policy. The insurance policy bearing No.160773175 in the name of deceased Hari Singh terminated on the date of his death i.e. on 1.2.2008. Bonuses declared after termination of the policies are not payable to the policyholder. Bonuses are announced collectively for all the insurance policies and not for a single policy and accordingly, the status report always depicts the vested bonuses after termination of a particular policy, which goes on increasing with the passage of time.

9. It is further pleaded that out of an amount of Rs.1,61,300/- due towards the complainant, opposite parties deducted an amount of Rs.4178/- being unpaid premium and accordingly, net amount due towards the complainant was Rs.1,57,122/- and cheque No.0732707 was issued to her. As per opposite parties, the complainant requested them for issuance of two policies, one in her own name and another in the name of her son Sukhjinder Singh and to deduct the amount of new policies out of Rs.1,57,122/- and return back the abovesaid cheque. As per the instructions of the complainant, one single premium market linked insurance policy bearing No.300884900 for Rs.50,000/- was issued to the complainant in her name. The complainant duly appended her thumb impression on the proposal form, after understanding its contents. The policy bearing No.30088400 is still in force. An amount of Rs.50,000/- was deducted out of net payable amount of Rs.1,57,122/- as per the instructions of the complainant. In this way, the balance amount due towards the complainant was Rs.1,07,122/-. Similarly, as per instructions of the complainant, opposite parties issued insurance policy bearing No.300885047 for sum assured of Rs.2 lacs with half yearly premium of Rs.3488/- commencing from 28.1.2008 in the name of her son Sukhjinder Singh and an amount of Rs.3488/- and interest of Rs.382/- on Rs.3488/- for one month, total amounting to Rs.3870/- was deducted from remaining amount of Rs.1,07,122/-, in this way, an amount of Rs.1,03,252/- was credited in the account of the complainant. The interest of Rs.382/- was charged because insurance policy in the name of Sukhjinder Singh commenced from 28.1.2008, whereas amount payable towards the complainant was due on 27.2.2008.

After controverting all other averments, opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10. Parties were afforded opportunities to produce evidence.

11. In support of her version, the complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavits dated 20.12.2013 and 14.8.2014, (Ex.C1 and Ex.C11); photocopy of payment receipt, (Ex.C2); photocopy of book of Chowkidar, (Ex.C3); photocopy of bank passbook, (Ex.C4); photocopy of status report, (Ex.C5); photocopy of letter, (Ex.C6); photocopy of postal receipt, (Ex.C7); photocopies of status reports, (Ex.C8 to Ex.C10) and submitted written arguments.

12. Opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of K.L Khichy dated 11.3.2014, (Ex.OP1/1); affidavit of sham Lal dated 16.9.2014; (Ex.OP1/2); photocopies of statement; (Ex.OP1/3 to Ex.OP1/5); photocopy of policy;(Ex.OP1/6); photocopies of proposal form; (Ex.OP1/7 and Ex.OP1/8); photocopy of policy; (Ex.OP1/9); photocopy of statement; (Ex.OP1/10); photocopy of voter card; (Ex.OP1/11); photocopy of detail marks, (Ex.OP1/12) and closed the evidence.

13. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the written arguments.

14. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his averments as taken in the complaint and as detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that the material facts are not in controversy. It is not disputed that Hari Singh got 'Money Back Insurance Policy' with basic sum assured of Rs.1 lac. Hari Singh died on 1.2.2008. Therefore, the complainant, being widow of Hari Singh, was entitled to receive the insured sum of Rs.1 lac in addition to other benefits. The total sum payable to the complainant was worked out Rs.1,74,100/-, but opposite parties have admittedly paid only Rs.1,03,252/-.

15. It is submitted by learned counsel for complainant that the stand of opposite parties is that the complainant opted for two other policies, one in her own name and another in the name of her son Sukhjinder Singh. The averments of the complainant are that the thumb impressions were obtained on some printed forms and blank forms. Opposite parties have brought on record copy of one new policy, (Ex.OP1/6) stated to be issued in the name of Jasmail Kaur after the death of Hari Singh, but in this document Hari Singh is recorded as nominee of Jasmail Kaur. This fact itself shows that Jasmail Kaur, complainant has never opted for 'Market Linked Insurance Policy', otherwise she was not to nominate Hari Singh, who has already expired. Opposite parties have also placed on record proposal form, (Ex.OP1/7) stated to be thumb marked by Jasmail Kaur. Most of the columns of this form were also blank, but it bears thumb impression of Jasmail Kaur. This fact further corroborates the stand of the complainant. Opposite parties have also brought on record another proposal form, (Ex.OP1/8) stated to be signed by Sukhjinder Singh, son of the complainant. Most of columns of this form are also blank. This form was got filled on 25.2.2008, but the policy commenced from 28.5.2007. There was no reason for policy being back dated. Moreover no policy containing terms and conditions was ever issued to the complainant or her son Sukhjinder Singh. All these facts proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.

16. Learned counsel for complainant further submitted that as per opposite parties, a sum of Rs.1,57,122/- vide cheque No.0732707 was sent to the complainant, but no document has been brought on record to prove this fact, rather it is further pleaded that out of this amount Jasmail Kaur and Sukhjinder Singh were got issued two new policies. No document has been produced to prove that the policies were ever supplied to the complainant and her son Sukhjinder Singh. Therefore, the complainant and her son are not bound by terms and conditions of the policies also. From all angles, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties stands established. The complainant is entitled for prayed reliefs.

In support of his submissions, learned counsel for complainant has cited 2014(2) CPR 357 (NC) case titled The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satpal Singh through its Managing Director & Anr. Learned counsel for complainant has also cited 2011(3) CPC 367 (NC) case titled Laxmi Bai & Ors. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. and 2013(1) CLT 589 (NC) case titled New India Assurance Company Ltd., New Delhi Vs. Pabbati Sridevi & Others, wherein terms and conditions were not communicated to the insurer. It was observed that these terms and conditions were used against the insurer.

17. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that the complainant has not brought on record true facts before this Forum and she has actively concealed the real facts. As per the complainant herself, the policy was in the name of her husband Hari Singh and he has expired in the year 2008. The version of opposite parties is that the complainant purchased one new policy in her name and another policy in the name of her son. A sum of Rs.50,000/- was adjusted out of sum payable to the complainant on account of policy purchased by her and sum of Rs.3870/- was utilized in the policy issued in the name of her son Sukhjinder Singh. The son of the complainant opted for policy, which is back dated, as such, he has also paid interest Rs.382/-. Sukhjinder Singh has not come forward to support the complainant and rebut the version of opposite parties. In case, the complainant has not purchased the policies out of sum payable to her on account of policy purchased by her husband, then she was not to remain silent for 5 years after death of Hari Singh. These facts show that the complainant was in the knowledge of this fact. Of-course, there are some columns blank in the proposal forms, but material information furnished by the complainant and her son is recorded in these forms. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the proposal form was not filled up at the instance of the complainant. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

18. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

19. Before coming to the main controversy, it is to be seen whether the proposal form was filled up at the instance of the complainant Jasmail Kaur or not. Copy of proposal form is brought on record by opposite parties as Ex.OP1/7, it is thumb marked by the complainant. Of-course, there are some columns blank, having thumb impression of the complainant, but this impressions is only under sub heading of authority letter. The proposal form cannot be discarded only for some blank columns, if execution is proved from other circumstances. The complainant has purchased this policy on 25.2.2008 and death of her husband took-place on 1.2.2008. The complainant has received the balance amount of Rs.1,03,252/-. In case, the complainant has not filled up the proposal form and purchased new policies, then she was not to remain silent for the period of more than 5 years. This fact further corroborates the version of opposite parties. Another policy was purchased in the name of Sukhjinder Singh, son of the complainant. He has also filled up proposal form on 25.2.2008. He has not appeared or tendered his affidavit to rebut these facts and to corroborate the version of the complainant. These facts further lead to the inference that both the complainant and her son had voluntarily opted for new insurance policies. In these circumstances.

20. The contention of the learned counsel for complainant that the complainant has not received any policy or its terms and conditions is also without any merits. In this case, the complainant has claimed benefits on the basis of the policy, which was in the name of her husband Hari Singh. The complainant has not impugned the policy issued in her own name.

21. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is dismissed without any order as to costs.

22. This case could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency.

23. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

08-10-2015

(M.P Singh Pahwa)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member