DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

C.C.No. 577 of 23-12-2013

Decided on 19-11-2014

Krishna Devi aged about 48 years W/o Late Sh. Harbans Lal (Market Committee Wale) R/o House No. 8, Ward No.14, Backside Kansal Road, Maur Mandi, District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

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

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

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

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

For Opposite parties : Sh.Inderjit Singh, counsel for the opposite parties.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated the complaint of the complainant is that her husband Harbans Lal had purchased one Jeevan Surbhi insurance policy bearing No. 161146940 effective from 28.11.1998 under table term 106-15-12 for the basic sum assured of Rs.25,000/- with half yearly premium of Rs.1514/- for the period of 12 years. At the time of selling of the said policy, the agent of the opposite parties conveyed the husband of the complainant that he shall get 30% of the basic sum assured after every 4 years for two terms and remaining 40% after 12 years and the policy was valid for 15 years i.e. up to 28.11.2013 and there is special provision in the policy that if it is in force for the full sum assured, in the event of his death prior to the maturity date but after 5 years from the commencement date, an additional amount of half of the sum assured stipulated in the policy without bonus after its expiry of 5 years up to 10 years shall be paid additionally alongwith the bonus and interim bonus and final addition bonus, if any. In case of accidental death of the husband of the complainant, during the currency of the policy in question, the Lrs/nominee shall get double of the basic sum assured of Rs.25,000/- plus bonus accrued thereupon. The life assured deposited the due premiums in time. The complainant, wife of the life assured was declared as nominee in the aforesaid policy. The DLA died a natural death on 19.7.2008 and complainant lodged the claim regarding the death of her husband with the opposite parties and submitted all the required documents to the opposite party No.1 to settle the claim, but the opposite parties did not pay her any amount till date despite repeated requests and reminders, rather they obtained her thumb impressions on some blank papers and blank printed forms. The complainant alleged that she received the status report of the policy in question from the opposite parties from which she came to know that she was entitled for an amount of Rs.25,000/- as BSA plus Rs.14,575/- as vested bonus plus Rs.12,500/- as additional half of the BSA alongwith the interim bonus, as DLA has died after the expiry of more than 5 years of the currency of the said policy and further came to know that the opposite parties have shown the net payable amount as Rs.48,675/- and shown the payment of Rs.48,675/- as paid to her vide cheque No.0735892, but in actual the complainant did not receive any amount from them till date. As such the amount of Rs.53,000/- approximately plus interim bonus is due against the opposite parties since 28.8.2008. The complainant sent a registered letter dated 18.11.2013 to the opposite parties and requested them to pay the amount of Rs.53,000/- plus interim bonus alongwith upto date interest @ 18% p.a., which comes out to the tune of Rs.60,000/-, totaling Rs.1,13,000/-, but they did not give the reply to the said letter till date. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.53,000/- alongwith upto date interest @ 18% p.a., which comes out to the tune of Rs.60,000/-, totaling Rs.1,13,000/- besides cost and compensation or to give him any other additional, alternative or consequential relief for which she may be found entitled to.

The opposite parties filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the true facts of the complaint are that after getting himself aware about the terms and conditions of the policy, Harbans Lal, husband of complainant purchased Money Back plan policy bearing No.161146940 under table term 106-15-12 for the sum assured of Rs.25,000/- with the commencement date of 28.11.1998 and opted to pay the half yearly premium of Rs.1514/-. After receiving the proposal form from the life assured, his request was processed. The opposite parties sent the said policy alongwith its documents including detailed terms and conditions to DLA. The complainant lodged the claim regarding the policy on account of death of DLA, who died on 19.7.2008. Accordingly, after getting completed the requisite formalities from the complainant, the opposite parties settled her claim to the tune of Rs.48,675/- on 30.8.2008, however the complainant requested them for the reinvestment of the claim amount of Rs.48,675/- plus Rs.1325/- by contributing in cash, totaling Rs.50,000/- in the ULIP policy and filled the proposal form dated 30.8.2008. On receiving the proposal form for the issuance of the ULIP policy from the complainant, her request was processed and a fresh policy bearing No.300888076 has been issued in her name and nothing is due against the opposite parties. The opposite parties have referred to the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in case titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein it has been held that in ULIP/Market Linked cases, the policyholder is not a consumer and Consumer Foras have no jurisdiction to try and entertain the matter of ULIP Policies. The opposite parties have pleaded that the complainant raised the dispute regarding the non-payment of the claim amount which was due in the year 2008, whereas she has filed the complaint after the lapse of more than 5 years as such the present complaint is time barred. Even the second policy has been issued to the complainant in the year 2008 and dispute in respect thereof is also not within the limitation.

The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

Admittedly, the husband of the complainant Harbans Lal had purchased one Jeevan Surbhi insurance policy bearing No.161146940 effective from 28.11.1998 under table term 106-15-12 for the basic sum assured of Rs.25,000/- with half yearly premium of Rs.1514/- for the period of 12 years. The DLA died a natural death on 19-7-2008 and complainant Krishana Devi is her nominee. The opposite parties issued the new ULIP policy bearing No. 300888076 for Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

The submission of the learned counsel for the complainant is that complainant lodged the claim regarding the death of her husband with the opposite parties and submitted all the required documents to the opposite party No.1 to settle the claim, but the opposite parties did not pay her any amount till date despite repeated requests and reminders, rather they obtained her thumb impressions on some blank papers and blank printed forms. The complainant received the status report of the policy in question from the opposite parties from which she came to know that she was entitled for the amount of Rs.25,000/- as BSA plus Rs.14,575/- as vested bonus plus Rs.12,500/- as additional half of the BSA alongwith the interim bonus, as DLA has died after the expiry of more than 5 years of the currency of the abovesaid policy and further came to know that the opposite parties have shown the net payable amount as Rs.48,675/- and shown the payment of Rs.48,675/- as paid to her vide cheque No.0735892, but in actual the complainant did not receive any amount from them till date. As such the amount of Rs.53,000/- approximately plus interim bonus is due against the opposite parties since 28-8-2008.

The submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that Harbans Lal, husband of complainant purchased Money Back plan policy bearing No.161146940 under table term 106-15-12 for the sum assured of Rs.25,000/- with the commencement date of 28.11.1998 and opted to pay the half yearly premium of Rs.1514/-. The complainant lodged the claim on account of the death of DLA, who died on 19.7.2008. Accordingly, after getting completed the requisite formalities from the complainant, the opposite parties settled her claim to the tune of Rs.48,675/- on 30.8.2008, however the complainant requested them for the reinvestment of the claim amount of Rs.48,675/- plus Rs.1325/- by contributing in cash, totaling Rs.50,000/- in the ULIP policy and filled the proposal form dated 30.8.2008. On receiving the proposal form for the issuance of the ULIP policy from the complainant, her request was processed and a fresh policy bearing No.300888076 has been issued in her name and nothing is due against the opposite parties.

A perusal of status report Ex. OP-1/2 of the policy in question produced on file by the opposite parties themselves reveals that the sum assured is Rs. 25,000/- and vested bonus is Rs. 15425/-. The date of commencement of the policy in question is 28-11-98 and DLA died on 19-7-2008 i.e. after more than five years but less than ten years from the date of commencement. Accordingly, the complainant is entitled to the claim amount Rs. 25,000/- basic sum assured, plus vested bonus Rs. 15425/- plus Rs. 12500/- additional half of basic sum assured i.e. totalling to Rs. 52,925/-. Rs. 50,000/- were re-invested in the aforesaid new ULIP policy Ex. OP-1/4 as per proposal form Ex. OP-1/3 submitted by the complainant. Admittedly, the opposite parties got deposited Rs. 1325/- from the complainant at the time of issuance of new policy. Thus, in this way, the complainant becomes entitled to Rs. 2925/- plus Rs. 1325/- totalling to Rs. 4250/-.

So far as the contention of the complainant regarding the amount invested in ULIP is concerned, this part of the complaint is not maintainable in view of the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in case 2013 (3) CPJ 203 titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Thus for this part of allegation, the complainant can avail the remedy in this regard in any appropriate Court/Authority/Forum, if so advised and permitted by law.

Hence, in view of what has been discussion above, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and cost. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 4250/- with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of payment of Rs. 48,675/- to the complainant till realzation.

The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.

Pronounced in open Forum

19-11-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Jarnail Singh) (Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member