DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 11 of 01-01-2014

Decided on 01-07-2015

Mool Chand Goyal aged about 63 years, S/o Sh. Arjun Dass, C/o Pat Ram Pawan Kumar, Commission Agents, Grain Market, Maur Mandi, District Bathinda.

…...Complainant

Versus

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

2. 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. Sunder Gupta, counsel for complainant.

For the opposite parties : Sh. Gaurav Aggarwal, counsel for OPs.

O R D E R

M.P. Singh Pahwa, President

1. Mool Chand, complainant has filed this complaint against Life Insurance Corporation of India and others, opposite parties under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in- referred to as 'Act').

2. 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 Money Back Jeevan Surbhi 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 life assured has to deposit 12 half yearly installments of Rs. 5,996/- each with the opposite parties under the Table Term 106-15-12 with basic assured sum of Rs. 50,000/- and another policy under money back scheme on yearly premium of Rs. 2,090/- under Table Term 75-20-20 with basic sum assured of Rs. 30,000/- for 20 years. It was further conveyed that said policies are money back policies and the life assured shall get 30% of the basic sum assured of Rs. 50,000/- after every four years for two terms and remaining 40% amount after 12 years. The policy shall remain effective for 15 years and at the time of maturity i.e. after 15 years, the complainant will get interim bonus, vested bonus and other benefits as per policy.

3. It was further conveyed to the complainant that for second policy with basic sum assured of Rs. 30,000/-, the life assured shall get 20% of the Basic Sum Assured after every five years for three terms and remaining 40% alongwith interim bonus, vested bonus and other benefits after 20 years.

4. It is alleged that being allured by the agent of the opposite parties, the complainant opted for purchase of aforesaid Money Back Policies of the opposite parties and paid Rs. 5,996/- as first premium and policy commenced from 28-5-1994 and was to mature on 28-5-2009. Accordingly, opposite parties issued policy No. 160671522 with Table Term 106-15-12 with sum assured of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith its terms and conditions. Similarly complainant opted for purchase of another Money Back Policy from the opposite parties and paid Rs. 2,090/- as first premium and the policy commenced from 15-5-1990 and was to mature on 15-5-2010. Accordingly, opposite parties issued policy No. 160360159 with Table Term 75-20-20 with sum assured of Rs. 30,000/- alongwith its terms and conditions.

5. It is pleaded that life assured continued to deposit the premiums at regular intervals with the opposite parties. The complainant received money back installments with regard to both the policies at regular intervals, but the last and final payments which were due at the time of maturity, were not paid by the opposite parties. The complainant approached the officials of the opposite party No. 1 at Rampura Phul in the month of May, 2009 and submitted all the documents for taking the maturity amount of first policy. The officials of opposite party No. 1 assured the complainant that due amount shall be sent to him shortly. Since the complainant was in dire need of money, he demanded discounted claim of the second policy in the month of May, 2009. The officials of the opposite parties got the signatures of the complainant on some blank papers and blank printed forms with regard to both the policies and assured the complainant that lawful claim shall be sent to him.

6. It is alleged that full and final amount with regard to aforesaid both the policies were not sent by the opposite parties to the complainant despite of his repeated requests and reminders. The complainant got status report regarding both the policies. From the status reports of policies, he learnt that an amount of Rs. 37,250/- was payable as maturity amount against first policy and an amount of Rs. 47,640/- was payable regarding second policy. The complainant further came to know that aforesaid amounts have been shown paid to him vide cheque No. 0825134 dated 28-5-2009 amounting to Rs. 6677/- regarding first policy and cheque No. 0825230 dated 30-5-2009 for Rs. 41,600/- against second policy, but these amounts have never been received by the complainant.

7. It is alleged that the officials of opposite party No. 1 conveyed the complainant that by using blank and printed forms got signed from the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 has issued another policy in the name of complainant vide policy No. 301821916 with basic sum assured of Rs. 49,000/- under Table Term 191-20-01 as one time premium but no terms and conditions were ever sent to the complainant. The officials of opposite party No. 1 further conveyed that complainant shall get Rs. 80,000/- after completion of three years from the date of commencement of the policy which commenced on 4-6-2009. Accordingly, complainant was to get Rs. 80,000/- on 5-6-2012. It is alleged that complainant met the officials of opposite party No. 1 in September, 2012 and requested for payment of Rs. 80,000/- alongwith other benefits and the officials of opposite party No. 1 got signatures of the complainant on some blank papers and blank printed forms and got bank account of complainant. They assured that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 80,000/- shall be credited to his account through NEFT. It is alleged that from the bank account statement, the complainant learnt that opposite parties have only credited Rs. 54,926/- against the due amount of Rs. 80,000/-. In this way, an amount of Rs. 25,074/- is still due against the opposite parties alongwith upto date interest @18% p.a. from 5-6-2012. The complainant alleged that he requested opposite party No. 1 time and again to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 25,074/- alongwith interest, but to no effect. Therefore, this act and conduct of the opposite parties show that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. The complainant has suffered mental tension, agony, harassment, humiliation and financial loss. The complainant has claimed refund of Rs. 25,074/- alonwith interest 18% p.a. in addition to compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 11,000/-.

8. 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 complainant is not consumer as defined under the 'Act'. The complainant has purchased investment linked policy for earning profit, as such he is not consumer; the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious; complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts.

9. As per opposite parties, complainant requested opposite parties for reinvestment of the amount in single premium ULIP policy. The complainant duly signed the proposal form after understanding the contents of the same for the issuance of single premium ULIP Policy. Accordingly, single premium market linked policy No. 301821916 was issued to the complainant which was duly sent to him and later on the said policy was surrendered by him. Cheque No. 0825134 dated 28-05-2008 for Rs. 6677/- and cheque No. 0825230 dated 30-05-2009 for Rs. 41,600/- were reinvested through accounting system of the Corporation as per instructions of the complainant for purchase of single premium market linked insurance policies. It is alleged that complainant has concealed from the Forum that he took loan of Rs. 29,000/- against insurance policy No. 160671522 in the month of October, 2008. Hence, the complainant did not approach this Forum with clean hands, as such complaint is liable to be dismissed.

10. Other legal objections are regarding limitation and that the complainant has raised many disputed and complicated facts which requires voluminous evidence which can not be adjudicated in Consumer Forum and that the complaint has been filed with ill motive of extorting money from the opposite parties.

11. On merits also, the opposite parties have controverted all the material averments. It is admitted that opposite parties have floated Money Back Jeevan Surbhi Insurance Policy. It is admitted that complainant purchased insurance policy after understanding terms and conditions. It is admitted that opposite parties issued policies No. 160671522 with table term 106-15-12 with sum assured of Rs. 50,000/- and 160360159 with table term 75-20-20 with sum assured of Rs. 30,000/-. It is specifically denied that agent of the opposite parties allured the complainant.

12. It is pleaded that with respect of insurance policy No. 160671522, opposite parties made payment of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- vide cheques No. 0102267 dated 28-5-2002 and 0037489 dated 28-05-2009 respectively, thus total amounting to Rs. 35,000/- as per insurance policy plan. It is also unfolded that complainant took loan of Rs. 29,000/- on 21-10-2008 against insurance policy No. 160671522. An amount of Rs. 37,250/- was due towards complainant as on 27-05-2009 ,i.e. date of maturity of said policy. At the same time principal loan amount of Rs. 29,000/- alongwith interest of Rs. 1,573/- total amounting to Rs. 30,573/- was due from the complainant. The net payable amount towards complainant after deducting loan amount and interest comes to Rs. 6677/-.

13. In respect of Insurance policy No.160360159, it is stated that policy was to mature in the month of May, 2010. The complainant requested the opposite parties in the year 2009 to make payment of the said policy in advance which is also known as discounted claim of the policy. Accordingly on 28-05-2009, the amount of Rs. 47,640/- was due towards complainant. At the same time, amount of Rs. 6040/- was due from him on behalf of making advance payment of 1 years which is called discounted claim charges. Hence after deducting the amount of Rs. 6040/- from Rs. 47,640/- the balance amount due towards the complainant was Rs. 41,600/- amount of Rs. 6677/- was due with respect of policy No. 160671522 and Rs. 41,600/- against policy No. 160360159, totaling to Rs. 48,277/- for both the policies. Opposite parties issued cheque No. 0825134 dated 28-5-2009 of Rs. 6677/- and cheque No. 0825230 dated 30-5-2009 of Rs. 41,600/- for both the policies to the complainant.

14. It is further pleaded that the complainant, for the purpose of reinvestment and to earn high profits, requested opposite parties to issue single premium market linked insurance policy which is also known as ULIP policy with single premium of Rs. 49,000/-. The complainant paid cash payment of Rs. 723/- and requested to adjust amount of aforesaid both the cheques towards premium of market linked insurance policy. It is pleaded that complainant purchased market linked insurance policy after duly understanding the features of the same. He signed proposal form after understanding contents of the same. Accordingly, single premium market linked insurance policy No. 301821916 was issued to the complainant. Opposite parties sent the original policy which includes proposal form signed by the complainant and terms and conditions of the same, to the complainant. The commencement date of said policy was 4-6-2009 with maturity in the month of June, 2029. However, in the month of October, 2012, complainant surrendered the said policy and the amount of Rs. 54,926/- which was due towards the complainant as on 4-10-2012 was directly credited to the account of the complainant through NEFT system. It is denied that the officials of opposite party No. 1 got signatures of complainant on some blank papers and printed form. After controverting all the averments, opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint.

15. The parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of his claim, complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavits dated 20-12-2013 and 14-8-14 (Ex. C-1 & Ex C-10), copies of premium receipts (Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-4), copies of status reports (Ex. C-5, Ex. C-7 to Ex. C-9) and copy of bank pass book (Ex. C-6).

16. In order to rebut this evidence, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavits of K L Khichy dated 11-3-14 and Sham Lal dated 16-9-2014 (Ex. OP-1/1 & Ex. OP-1/2), copies of statements (Ex. OP-1/3 to Ex. OP-1/6), copy of policy(Ex. OP-1/7), copy of proposal form (Ex. OP-1/8) and copy of letter (Ex. OP-1/9). Complainant has also submitted written submissions.

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

18. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as set up in the complaint and as detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that material facts are not in controversy. It is not disputed that complainant purchased money back policies which were to mature on 28-5-2009 and 15-5-2010 respectively. It is not disputed that complainant received money back installments with regard to the policies at regular intervals but the opposite parties have failed to release the last and final payments which were due at the time of maturity. The complainant has also alleged that when he approached the opposite parties for release of his due amount, his signatures were obtained on some blank papers and blank printed forms with an assurance that claim with regard to both the policies will be released shortly, but complainant has not received the final payment qua both the policies. The stand of the opposite parties is that they had issued another policy in the name of complainant with basic sum assured of Rs. 49,000/-. The complainant was not supplied the terms and conditions qua this alleged third policy. Moreover, the complainant was assured that he will get Rs. 80,000/- after completion of three years from the date of this policy which commenced on 4-6-2009. As such, complainant was entitled to Rs. 80,000/- in the year 2012 with other benefits but he was released only Rs. 54,926/- against due amount of Rs. 80,000/-. Hence, an amount of Rs. 25,074/- is still due against the opposite parties alongwith interest. Non-release of this amount by the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the complainant is also entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 11,000/-.

19. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that opposite parties have brought on record copy of proposal form stated to be filled up by complainant for availing policy against Rs. 49,000/- but a perusal of this document will also show that number of columns are still blank. Last page of this document contains sub-heading as 'authority letter'. It is signed by the complainant but its columns are still blank. This fact further corroborate the allegation of complainant that his signatures were obtained on blank papers/forms. The opposite parties were also required to prove that complainant was supplied with terms and conditions, but no dispatch register or any other document has been brought on record to prove this fact. The inference to be drawn is that the terms and conditions were not supplied to the complainant. As such, complainant is not bound by the terms and conditions contained in that policy. From all angles, claim of the complainant stands proved. So the reliefs prayed by the complainant be granted to him.

    To support these submissions, learned counsel for the complainant cited 2013(1) CLT 589 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd., New Delhi Vs. Pabbati Sridevi & other, wherein it was observed that when the terms and conditions are not communicated to the insured, these cannot be used by the insurance company. 2011(3) CPC 367 case titled Laxshmi Bai & Ors. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Ins. Co. Ltd., & Ors., wherein claim was not released. It was observed that it is a continuity of cause of action until assured amount was paid.

20. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that although the complainant has referred to some money back policies, but the final dispute is regarding third policy No. 301821916. As per complainant, he was to receive Rs. 80,000/- against this policy after completion of three years but he is not paid the full amount and was paid only Rs. 54,926/- against this policy. The complainant has accepted this amount without any protest. As such, the complainant is estopped from raising this claim. Moreover, copy of the policy is placed on record as Ex. OP-1/7. It is Market Linked Policy. Therefore, it is speculative policy and got for business purposes. As such, the complainant is not 'consumer' as defined under the 'Act'. The complaint is not maintainable on this score also. To support this submission, learned counsel for the opposite parties cited 2013(III) (NC) titled as Ram Lal Agarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., & Anr,

21. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that before availing this policy, complainant himself filled up proposal form, copy of which is produced as Ex. OP-1/8. Ofcourse some columns are not filled up but the material columns are filled up. It is signed by the complainant. The complainant was having no reason to sign proposal form with all blank columns. Moreover, other evidence on record will prove that complainant availed this policy with his free will/consent and full knowledge. The policy was availed by the complainant in the year 2009. He has received the amount against this policy in the year 2012. The complainant has invested the amount of Rs. 49,000/- which was payable to him against earlier policies matured in the year 2009-2010. In case the complainant has not received the amount against earlier policies in the year 2009-2010, he was not to remain mum for a period of more than four years. This facts leads to inference that complainant was fully aware of availing third policy which is Market Linked Policy. From all angles, case of complainant is not proved and he is not entitled to any relief.

22. Last submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that copy of policy Ex. OP-1/7 reveals that original policy was addressed to the complainant. Ofcourse the opposite parties have not produced any record to prove despatch of this policy but policy was issued in the year 2009 and the opposite parties were to retain despatch record only for three years. Hence, adverse inference cannot be drawn against the opposite parties only for the reason that no record has been produced to prove despatch of the policy.

23. We have carefully gone through the record and case law cited by the learned counsel for both the parties and have considered the rival contentions.

24. Before proceeding further, it is to be considered whether complainant falls under the definition of 'consumer'. Ofcourse, dispute is regarding Market Linked Policy, but as per complainant he has not opted for this policy. The complainant has also availed two previous policies. It is the case of the complainant that final amount payable to him was not paid and the stand of the opposite parties is that complainant has availed Market Linked Policy against the amount payable to him qua earlier policies. In these circumstances, in view of the case set up by the complainant, the law laid down in Ram Lal Agarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., & Anr, is not applicable to the facts of this case and the complainant falls under the definition of 'consumer'.

25. Although the complainant has alleged that he was not paid the final amount against his earlier policies, but ultimately, the complainant has restricted his claim to the balance amount of Rs. 25,074/- with interest in addition to compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 11,000/-. As per complainant the amount of Rs. 25,074/- is the difference between the payable amount of Rs. 80,000/- and paid amount of Rs. 54,926/-. This amount of Rs. 80,000/- was payable to the complainant against last policy. Therefore from this stand of the complainant, it can be safely inferred that now the complainant has raised claim only qua last policy bearing No. 301821916, The stand of the opposite parties is that complainant has opted for this policy and it is market related policy. The opposite parties have brought on record copy of proposal form Ex. OP-1/8. The material columns of this form are duly filled up. This form is signed by the complainant. The complainant has not disputed his signatures on the form. The only stand of the complainant is that his signatures were obtained on blank form. The complainant was not having any reason to put signatures on blank form. Other circumstances will also prove that complainant was fully aware of the contents of this proposal form. As per complainant his earlier policies were matured on 28-5-2009 and 15-5-2010. He has not received final payments against these policies and his signatures were obtained on blank papers and blank form. In case the complainant has not received the payment against these policies, then there was no reason for him to remain mum for such a long period. More so when the complainant has admittedly received installments of amount on earlier occasions being money back policies These facts also show that complainant has opted for third policy with his free will.

26. The contention of the complainant that he was not supplied with the terms and conditions of the policy is not accepted mainly for the reason that complainant was not supposed to remain mum for such a long period. Ofcourse the opposite parties have not produced any despatch register to prove that policy was actually supplied to the complainant but the policy was issued in the year 2009. The complainant has raised dispute in the year 2014 i.e. more than four years after. The opposite parties were at liberty to destroy the despatch record after three years as per rules and regulations.

27. Keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence placed on file by the parties, this Forum is of the considered opinion that complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties by producing cogent and convincing evidence. Hence, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

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

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

    Announced :

    01-07-2015

    (M.P.Singh Pahwa )

    President

     

     

    (Sukhwinder Kaur)

    Member

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh )

    Member