Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 708.

                                                          Instituted on     : 15.12.2017.

                                                          Decided on       : 03.01.2019.

Sharmila Devi w/o Sh. Kuldeep Singh, R/o H.No.29, Vijay Nagar, Panipat, age 29 years, Mb.9466828215.

                                                                    ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Rohtak Branch office, Jeevan Jyoti Subhash Road, Opp. Akashwani, Rohtak through its Authorised Signatory.

                                                                   ……….Opposite party.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

                   SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.Kuldeep Singh Jangra, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.S.P.Gulati, Advocate for opposite party.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that complainant had got herself insured vide policy no.179098936 dated 28.03.2012 for a total sum of Rs.500000/-. That complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.125000/- with the respondent. That the complainant has closed her aforesaid policy and requested the OP to release the total amount of Rs.125000/- alongwith interest but the respondent had only paid Rs.94835/- in lieu of Rs.125000/-. That complainant requested the respondent to pay the remaining amount of Rs.30165/- but the respondent flatly refused to pay the alleged amount to the complainant. That the act of opposite party is highly illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for  directing the OP to pay the remaining amount of Rs.30165/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.

2.                          Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite party who filed its written reply submitting therein that the complainant had deposited the premium @12130/- from 28.03.2012 to 28.09.2016 as per terms and conditions of the policy contract. That the policy holder requested for surrender of the policy and surrender value of Rs.94820/- was paid to the policy holder on 28.04.2017 as per terms and conditions of the policy. That the complainant had received the payment as full and final settlement. Hence the question of remaining amount does not arise and complaint is not entitled for any other amount and dismissal of complaint has been sought.

3.                          Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4.                          Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A & Ex.CW1/B, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed his evidence.  On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP has tendered affidavit Ex.R1, documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R7 and closed his evidence. 

5.                          We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case carefully.

6.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that complainant surrendered her policy after completion of 5 years and an amount of Rs.94820/- has been paid by the respondent’s officials. As per respondent, the surrender value had already been paid and at the time of receiving the payment, document Ex.R5 was also signed by the complainant Smt. Sharmila in which an amount of Rs.94820/- has been mentioned and this amount has been acceptable by the complainant. No protest has been made at that time. After perusal of all the relevant documents we came to the conclusion that the respondent officials had paid the surrender value of the policy Rs.94820/- to the complainant. The complainant is demanding the total amount which was deposited by her with the respondent officials which comes to Rs.125000/-. On the other hand, respondent officials covered the life of the complainant for 5 years. Hence she was only entitled for the surrender value which has already been paid by the opposite party.

7.                          In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and as such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 

8.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.

9.                          File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

03.01.2019.

                                                          ......................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Ved Pal Hooda, Member.

                                                                        …………………………..

                                                                        Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.