DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 582 of 23-12-2013

Decided on 25-06-2015

Labh Singh aged about 62 years, S/o Sh. Dalip Singh, R/o Balaki Patti, Maur Khurd, Post Office Maur, District Bathinda.

….......Complainant

Versus

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Near PWD Rest House, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda through its Senior Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, 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. Surinder Kumar, counsel for complainant.

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

O R D E R

M.P.Singh Pahwa, President

The complainant Labh Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is permanent resident of Maur District Bathinda. It is alleged that opposite parties are service oriented company and floated Jeevan Sanchay Plan Insurance Policy. The agent of the opposite parties approached complainant at his residential house and allured him to get aforesaid policy. It was conveyed by the agent that complainant has to deposit 30 half yearly installments of Rs. 5,188/- each with the opposite parties and policy is money back policy. The life assured (complainant) shall get Rs. 25,000/- firstly in the year 2004 and thereafter in 2009. At the time of maturity of policy in the year 2014, remaining amount alongwith other benefits shall be paid to life assured. The complainant further pleaded that being allured by agent, he opted for purchase of Jiwan Sanchay Plan Insurance Policy of the opposite parties and paid Rs. 5,188/- as first premium on 28-5-99. The opposite parties issued policy No. 161270003 with Table and Term 124-15 with sum assured of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith its terms and conditions to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant continued to deposit the premiums at regular intervals with the opposite parties. The opposite parties were duty bound to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the life assured in May, 2004 being money back policy which was duly paid. Thereafter opposite parties were to pay Rs. 25,000/- on 28-5-2009 which has not been paid. It is also alleged that when the complainant went to the office of opposite party No. 1 at Rampura Phul to inquire about the fate of amount of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid on 28-5-2009, opposite party No. 1 got the signatures of complainant on some blank papers and blank printed forms. It was assured that aforesaid amount of Rs. 25,000/- shall be sent to the complainant shortly, but since then no such amount has been sent to the complainant. The complainant got status report from the opposite parties from which the complainant learnt that he was entitled for Rs. 25,000/- and opposite parties have shown the payment of Rs. 25,000/- to him vide cheque No. 0739992 dated 28-5-2009, but actually no such amount has been received by the complainant. The complainant got issued registered letter dated 10-11-2013 posted on 19-11-2013 to the opposite parties, requestimg them to pay the aforesaid amount with interest, but no reply has been received. The complainant has alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties due to which the complainant has claimed an amount of Rs. 25,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. in addition to compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 11,000/-.

Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing joint written version. In written version, opposite parties have taken legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the complainant and complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts.

As per opposite parties, true facts are that complainant approached opposite parties for purchase of insurance policy under money back plan for sum assured of Rs. 1,00,000/- in his name. After getting himself aware about terms and conditions of the policy, he submitted proposal form and opted to deposit half yearly premium of Rs. 5,188/-. After receipt of proposal form, his request was processed and accordingly policy bearing No. 161270003 under Table Term 125-15 with date of commencement 28-5-1999 was issued to complainant alongwith complete policy documents which included detailed terms and conditions of the policy. In the month of May, 2004, survival benefit to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- was due, which was paid to the complainant. Again in the month of May, 2009, survival benefit to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- was due and payable to the complainant. However, complainant made request to the opposite parties for re-investment of survival benefit amount of Rs. 25,000/- in ULIP policy. He submitted proposal form dated 31-5-2009. On receipt of proposal form, his request was processed and accordingly fresh policy bearing No. 301821949 was issued in the name of complainant. Now nothing is due/payable by the opposite parties to the complainant on account of survival benefit.

Further legal objections are that in ULIP/market linked cases, the policy holder is not a consumer and Consumer Foras have no jurisdiction to try and entertain the matter of ULIP/market Linked policies. That the complainant has raised the dispute regarding non payment of survival benefit amount of Rs. 25,000/- which was due in the year 2009; the complaint has been filed after lapse of more than 5 years, so it is time barred. That intricate questions of law and facts are involved, which requires voluminous evidence and documents which is not possible in the summary procedure under this 'Act' and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the Civil Court. That this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint; complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the complainant; there is neither deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. That complainant is not consumer as defined under the 'Act' and that the complaint has been filed only to injure the goodwill and reputation of the opposite parties.

On merits also, the opposite parties have controverted all the material averments and have reiterated their version as taken in legal objections and detailed above. In the end, opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of complaint.

The parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of his claim, complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavits dated 19-12-13 and 14-8-14 (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-6), copy of policy (Ex.C-2), copy of status report (Ex. C-3), copy of letter (Ex. C-4) and copy of postal receipt (Ex. C-5).

In order to rebut this evidence, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Sham Lal dated 30-8-14 (Ex. OP-1/1), copy of policy status (Ex. OP-1/2 & Ex. OP-1/5)), copy of proposal form (OP-1/3) and copy of policy (Ex. OP-1/4). Both the parties have also submitted written arguments.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record and written submissions of the parties.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that material facts are not in controversy. It is admitted that complainant purchased money back policy namely Jeevan Sanchay Plan Insurance on 28-5-1999. It is also not disputed that after five years i.e. in the year 2004, the complainant was paid Rs. 25,000/- being survival benefit. The dispute is regarding amount of Rs. 25,000/- which was payable to the complainant in the year 2009. Admittedly this amount is not paid by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have pleaded that complainant opted for ULIP policy and to prove this fact, opposite parties have referred proposal form Ex. OP-1/3. The complainant has alleged that in the year 2004 when he went to inquire about Rs. 25,000/- which was payable, his signatures were obtained on some blank papers and printed forms. The proposal form Ex . OP-1/3 is also amongst those forms upon which signatures were obtained. From the copy of proposal form, brought on record, Forum can notice that number of columns are still unfilled. The signatures of the complainant are appearing on page '4' under sub heading 'authority letter', but all the columns of the form are blank. This fact also corroborate the version of complainant that his signatures were obtained on blank forms. Even otherwise, the opposite parties were required to supply second policy containing terms and conditions. There is nothing on record to prove that second policy was supplied to the complainant. No record has been produced to prove despatch of policy documents i.e. terms and conditions of policy to the complainant. Therefore, the inference is that terms and conditions of this alleged policy was not supplied. To support his submissions, learned counsel for the complainant cited 2014(2) CPR (NC) 357 case titled The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Satpal Singh through its Managing Director &Anr.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that payment of Rs. 25,000/- is shown made to the complainant vide cheque dated 28-05-2009. Therefore, if this amount was paid to the complainant, then how it was invested by the opposite parties for ULIP policy is not explained. This fact also shows that complainant has never opted for purchase of any subsequent policy (ULIP), as such, subsequent alleged policy is not applicable to the complainant. To support this, learned counsel for complainant has also referred decision of Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, rendered in First Appeal No. 106 of 2012 decided on 10-06-2014 in the case titled SBI Life Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ranjit Kaur and Others.

To tide over these submissions, learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that complainant is disputing regarding subsequent policy which is ULIP policy. Therefore, complainant is not consumer as defined under the 'Act'. As such, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the matter. To support this, learned counsel for opposite parties has cited 2013(III) (NC) titled as Ram Lal Agarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., & Anr, and decision of Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in Consumer Complant No. 96 of 2011 decided on 4-7-2011 titled as Smt. Paramjit Kaur Vs. Aviva Life Insurance.

The next submission of learned counsel for opposite parties is that as per complainant, the amount was due in the year 2009 but the complaint has been filed after a lapse of more than 5 years. As such, the complaint is time barred.

At the last limb of his submission, learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that even on merit, the case of complainant is not proved. The complainant has admitted that he received Rs. 25,000/- as survival benefit being money back policy in the year 2004 and subsequent amount was payable in the year 2009. The plea of complainant that his signatures were obtained on some blank papers and printed forms is not tenable because in the year 2004, the complainant has received Rs. 25,000/- as survival benefit being money back policy, but it is not the case of the complainant that in the year 2004 also, he put signatures on any blank papers or printed form. It shows that complainant was aware of the procedure for receipt of payment of money back policy. The opposite parties have placed on record proposal form. It is duly signed by complainant after understanding terms and conditions. The complainant remained mum for a long period of four years. This fact also shows that complainant was fully aware that his amount of Rs. 25,000/- has been invested in ULIP policy. From every angle, complainant is not entitled to any relief.

We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions.

Before considering the complaint on merits, firstly it is to be seen whether the complainant falls under the definition of 'consumer'. Of course in the case of Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. ltd., supra, it was observed that when the policy is taken for investment of premium amount in share market which is for speculative gain, the complainant does not come within the purview of 'Act', The perusal of this entire judgement will reveal that fact of the case in hand are quite distinguishable from the fact of the case of Ram Lal Aggarwalla. In the case in hand, the complainant has not pleaded taking of any market linked policy. The categorical stand of the complainant is that he obtained policies namely Jiwan Sanchay Plan Insurance policy which is admittedly not speculative policy. Of course in written version, opposite parties have pleaded that complainant also obtained ULIP policy. Therefore, whether the complainant comes under purview of consumer is to be seen from the averments alleged by the complainant in the complainant and not from the version put forward by the opposite parties.

The complainant has alleged that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was payable to him in May, 2009 being money back policy. The stand of the opposite parties is that complainant filled up proposal form and obtained another ULIP policy. The opposite parties have placed on file copy of proposal form duly signed by complainant. Of course there are some blank columns, but from this fact alone, it cannot be concluded that complainant has not opted for this policy or that signatures of the complainant were obtained on totally blank form, especially when from the other evidence it is made out that complainant was having knowledge of ULIP policy. The plea of the complainant is that in the year, 2009, he made inquiry for non-receipt of Rs. 25,000/- and his signatures were obtained on blank printed papers and forms and he was assured that the amount will be sent shortly. The complainant has admittedly received Rs. 25,000/- in the year 2004. Therefore, complainant was fully aware that no form is to be filled up for receipt of amount of survival benefit being money back policy. Therefore, in this way, complainant has impliedly admitted that he put signatures on the proposal form.

The amount of Rs. 25,000/- was due on 28-5-2009 but the complaint has been filed in the year 2013. Copy of the legal notice Ex. C-4 placed on file is dated 10-11-2013 i.e after more than four years from the due date. This fact lead to the inference that complainant was fully aware that he has re-invested Rs. 25,000/- in another policy. Otherwise complainant was not to wait for such a long period of more than four years.

The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that complainant was not supplied policy alongwith terms and conditions is devoid of any merit. The stand of the opposite parties is that the complainant was issued ULIP policy. In the complaint, the complainant has not pleaded that he has not received second policy i.e. ULIP policy. The opposite parties have pleaded in written version that complainant had obtained second policy by re-investing amount of Rs. 25,000/-.Despite this stand of the opposite parties, complainant in his affidavit Ex. C-6 has also not asserted that he has not received second policy containing its terms and conditions. Therefore, from this conduct of the complainant, the inference is that he was fully aware about the second policy i.e. ' ULIP'.

In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

Announced :

25-06-2015

(M.P.Singh Pahwa )

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh )

Member