Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/177/2019

Ram Karan - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC of India - Opp.Party(s)

Pawan Kumar Sharma & Sandeep Sharma Adv.

22 Jan 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	177 of 2019
Date of Institution	13.08.2019
Date of Decision	22.01.2020

Ram Karan aged about 70 years s/o Sh.Ram Rakha, resident of H.No.2080, Pipliwala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh (UT), through Power of Attorney Kuldeep Chand, aged about 50 years s/o Sh.Ram Karan, resident of H.No.2080, Pipliwala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh UT.                               

                                                …..Appellant/Complainant.

                                Versus

1. LIC of India, through Branch Manager, Branch Office 16N, Bay No.71-72, Sector 2, Panchkula 134109.
2.  Sh.Hitesh Issar (Development Officer), Flat No.16, GH-14, Sector 20, Panchkula.

 2nd Address:-

Sh.Hitesh Issar (Development Officer), LIC of India, Branch Office-16N, Bay No.71-72, Sector 2, Panchkula - 134109

                                      ....Respondents/Opposite Parties

BEFORE:             JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                             MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                             MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

Sh. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Sh. Gaurav Bakshi, Advocate for respondent No.2.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

            This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.06.2019, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, it dismissed Consumer Complaint bearing No.555 of 2018.

2.             The Forum noted down the following facts narrated by the complainant :-

 “The case of the complainant in brief is that he obtained ‘Profit Plus Plan’ of OPs vide Policy No.176092242, dated 31.5.2008 having annual premium of Rs.50,000/- to be paid for five years upto 31.5.2012 and to be matured on 31.5.2018.  It is averred that the complainant paid regular premium for five years against the said policy.  It is also averred that the Opposite Parties at the time of issuing the policy in question assured the complainant to get maturity amount of Rs.8,88,225/- against the policy in question (Ann.C-1).  However, the Opposite Parties made the payment of Rs.4,00,520/- only (Ann.C-3) under the policy after the date of maturity against the promised amount of Rs.8,88,225/-. It is stated that the complainant suffered loss of Rs.4,87,705/- due to wrong act of Opposite Parties.  The complainant took the matter with the OPs, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.” 

3.             The Forum noted down the following facts narrated by Opposite Party No.1 to the complaint filed by the complainant :-

“2]       The Opposite Party NO.1 has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that document Ann.C-1 attached by the complainant is not issued by the OP company.  It is stated that otherwise also, it has been specifically mentioned in this document that the benefits under the illustration may vary as per the market conditions and the insurance is subject matter of solicitation.  It is denied that the OP is liable to pay Rs.8,88,225/- as claimed.  It is stated that the amount of Rs.4,00,519/- paid by the Opposite Parties to the complainant against the policy in question is correct.  Denying other allegations, the Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.”  

4.             The Forum noted down the following facts narrated by Opposite Party No.2 to the complaint filed by the complainant :-

“ The Opposite Party No.2 has also filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant was nowhere promised by Opposite Party NO.2 that on maturity an amount of Rs.8,88,225/- will be paid to him.  It is also stated that in the receipts of premium it is clearly mentioned that “in this policy, the investment risk in the investment portfolio is born by the policy holder.” It is submitted that in Ann.C-1 in the end it is mentioned that the policy is NAV based/market linked plan and the figure presented in the policy is purely indicative.  It is submitted that the OP Company has rightly disbursed the amount as per the NAV Units to the complainant and credited the amount in his account.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying other allegations, the Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.” 

5.                The complainant, filed replication to the written statement of the Opposite Parties, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties. 

6.                The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7.                After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.

8.                Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

9.                We have heard Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

10.              Counsel for the appellant/complainant has submitted that the insurance company only paid the amount of Rs.4,00,520/- i.e. half of the maturity amount of Rs.8,88,225/- and wrongly deducted the remaining amount Rs.4,87,705/-, which amounted to deficiency in service but the Forum wrongly dismissed the complaint which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order. 

11.              Counsel for respondent No.1 & respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1 & Opposite Party No.2 has submitted that the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant.

12.              After going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

13.              The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order. The answer, to this, question is in the affirmative. It is the admitted fact that the complainant took LIC’s Profit Plus policy bearing No.176092242 and paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- as annual premium. It is also the admitted fact that the complainant paid the total amount of Rs.2,50,000/- i.e. Rs.50,000/- for five years, as is evident from receipts (at page Nos.9 to 14). It is also not in dispute that the number of units on the date of maturity was 20680.965 and NAV as on 31.05.2018 was Rs.19.3666 and hence the maturity value was Rs.4,00,519.97. It is also not in dispute that the said amount of Rs.4,00,519.97 was paid to the complainant. The only allegation of the complainant is that as per Annexure C-1 annexed by the complainant, the insurance company assured to make the maturity amount of Rs.8,88,225/- but they paid only an amount of Rs.4,00,519.97 and deducted the huge amount. The said allegation of the complainant has no value at all because a bare perusal of Annexure C-1 clearly reveals that the same was neither stamped or signed by the insurance company and not an authenticated document. Even if for the sake of arguments, we rely upon the said document (Annexure C-1), specific noting was mentioned, which reads thus :-

“The Figure Presented are purely indicative.  The fund management of Profit Plus Plan is independent of Profit Plus and The Actual result can vary significantly. The Figure Presented are indication of future returns. Sustainance of such growth in future is dependents on market Performance and not be Guaranteed.”    

Not only this, even on the receipts (at page Nos.9 to 13) annexed by the complainant clearly written that “The Investment Risk In Investment Portfolio is Borne by the Policyholder.”

14.              After going through the documents annexed by the complainant, we are of the view that the growth value of the fund mentioned in Annexure C-1 is only tentative and is subject to market risk.

15.              In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting the interference of this Commission.

16.              For the reasons recorded above, this appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is upheld.

17.           Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.

18.           File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

January   22^nd, 2020       

                                                (RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

                                                                   PRESIDENT
                       

                                                       

                                                          (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

                                                        (RAJESH K. ARYA)

                                                                       MEMBER

 

rb

                                      

                                     

 

                                      STATE COMMISSION

APPEAL No.177 of 2019

(Ram Karan Vs. LIC of india & anr.)

Argued by:

Sh. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Sh. Gaurav Bakshi, Advocate for respondent No.2.

 

Dated the  22^nd  day of  January, 2020

                                                          -.-

                   Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, the appeal has been dismissed and the impugned order is upheld.

 

(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER

(RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI) PRESIDENT

(RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER

 

rb