DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.76 of 15-01-2014

Decided on 20-08-2015

Simarjit Kaur @ Inderjit Kaur aged about 50 years W/o Gurjant Singh @ Janta S/o Niranjan Singh Sarpanch R/o VPO Kutiwal Kalan, Tehsil 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, Urban Estate, 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 the complainant.

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

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President:-

1. The complainant Simarjit Kaur @ Inderjit Kaur (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Life Insurance Corporation of India and Other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that opposite parties are service oriented company and floated 'Money Back Jeevan Sanchay Plan Insurance Policy'. The agent of the opposite parties approached the complainant at her residential house and allured her to get aforesaid policy. It was conveyed by the agent that the complainant has to deposit 30 half yearly installments of Rs.2401/- each with opposite parties and policy is money back policy. The life assured (complainant) shall get 25% of the Basic Sum Assured of Rs.50,000/- after every 5 years for first two terms and remaining 50% amount after 15 years alongwith interim bonus, vested bonus and other benefits thereon as per the policy.

3. It is alleged that the complainant being allured by agent, opted for purchase of 'Money Back Policy' of the opposite parties and paid Rs.2401/- as first premium on 28.5.1999. Opposite parties issued policy bearing No.161270086 with Table Term 124-15 with sum assured of Rs.50,000/- alongwith its terms and conditions to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant continued to deposit the premiums at regular intervals with opposite parties. Opposite parties were duty bound to pay 25% of basic sum assured i.e. Rs.12,500/- to the life assured in the year, 2004, which was duly paid to her. Thereafter, opposite parties were to pay second money back in the year 2009, which was due on 28.5.2009, which was not paid to her. The complainant approached the office of opposite party No. 1 and asked it for the loan against the policy in the month of February, 2008. The officials of opposite party No.1 obtained the signatures of the complainant on some blank papers and blank printed forms with the assurance that maximum permissible loan shall be released to her against the abovesaid policy and accordingly, she submitted the original policy. Opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that the loan amount shall be given to her through cheque, but no such amount has been disbursed to her. On inquiry by the complainant, the officials of the opposite party No.1 conveyed her that a fresh insurance policy against the single premium of Rs.23,000/- has been issued to her by using the loan amount against the abovesaid policy and further conveyed her that the policy bearing No.300884874 has been issued to her and loan amount that was to be disbursed to her has been adjusted against the abovesaid policy and aforesaid amount shall be doubled after 5 years i.e. complainant shall get the amount of Rs.46,000/- after 5 years alongwith the other benefits under the abovesaid policy and handed over her a pamphlet, wherein it has been mentioned so. Opposite parties did not send the terms and conditions of the abovesaid policy to the complainant. The amount of Rs.46,000/- was due against the opposite parties on 26.2.2013 and complainant demanded the said amount from the officials of the opposite party No.1, they again obtained her signatures on some blank printed forms in the month of October, 2012 and conveyed her that the aforesaid amount with other benefits shall be sent to her through cheque shortly. The complainant received the cheque bearing No.0803330 dated 12.10.2012 for a sum of Rs.24,682/- from opposite parties against the abovesaid policy. In this way an amount of Rs.21,318/- is due alongwith interest @ 18% p.a from the due date till its realization against opposite parties. The complainant time and again approached the opposite party No.1 and requested it to pay the amount of Rs.21,318/- alongwith upto date interest, but to no effect, rather opposite parties flatly refused to pay amount to her.

On this backdrop of the facts, the complainant has alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. It is also stated that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.21,318/- alongwith upto date interest @ 18% p.a. and also for compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 11,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

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

5. As per opposite parties, true facts are that the complainant approached them for purchase of insurance policy under money back plan for sum assured of Rs.50,000/- in her name. After getting herself aware about the terms and conditions of the policy, she filled proposal form and opted to deposit half yearly premium of Rs.2401/-. After receiving the proposal form, the request of the complainant was processed and accordingly, policy bearing No.161270086 under Table Term 124-15 with date of commencement 28.5.1999 was issued to her alongwith complete policy documents which included detailed terms and conditions of the policy. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, opposite parties paid first survival benefit, which became due and payable in the year 2004. In the year 2008, the complainant approached opposite parties and showed her willingness to purchase ULIP policy (Market Linked Plan) in her name by taking the loan of Rs.23,000/- against policy No.161270086 and filled the proposal form and signed the relevant documents for the grant of the loan of Rs.23,000/- for the purchase of ULIP policy. On receiving the proposal form for the issuance of the ULIP policy and grant of the loan, her request was processed and she was granted the loan of Rs.23,000/-. Opposite parties issued the ULIP policy bearing No.300884874 to the complainant alongwith its documents including the detailed terms and conditions in her name by appropriating the loan amount of Rs.23,000/-. In the year 2009, second survival benefit of Rs.12,500/- was due and payable against first policy bearing No.161270086 and amount of survival benefit of Rs.12,500/- had been adjusted by opposite parties against the loan amount of Rs.23,000/- i.e. Rs.9901/- against principal amount and Rs.2599/- against interest and remaining loan amount is still outstanding against the first policy bearing No.161270086. In the year 2012, the abovesaid ULIP policy No.300884874 stands foreclosed/surrendered and accordingly, the surrender value to the tune of Rs.24,682/- was paid to the complainant through cheque by opposite parties on account of ULIP policy. As such, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

6. Further legal objections of opposite parties 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 intricate questions of law and facts are involved, which requires voluminous evidence and documents, which is not possible in the summary procedure under the 'Act' and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the Civil Court. That this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint; That complainant is estopped by her own act and conduct from filing the complainant; That there is neither deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The complainant is not consumer as defined under the 'Act' and complaint has been filed only to injure the goodwill and reputation of opposite parties. That the complainant has raised the dispute regarding non payment of remaining amount of Rs.21,318/-, which was due and payable by opposite parties. As the ULIP policy is a market linked plan and there is no guaranteed return in ULIP policies. The fund/surrender value is payable only as per the terms and conditions of the abovesaid policy. The complainant has purchased the above said ULIP policy in the year 2008 and filed the present complaint in the year 2013, after the lapse of about 5 years, as such this complaint is time barred. That there is neither deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

7. On merits also, 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.

8. Parties were afforded opportunities to produce evidence.

9. In support of her version, the complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit dated 12.1.2014 and 16.8.2014, (Ex.C1 and Ex.C7); copy of pamphlet, (Ex.C2); copy of payment receipt, (Ex.C3); copy of status report, (Ex.C4); copy of bank passbook, (Ex.C5) and copy of application form, (Ex.C6).

10. Opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sham Lal dated dated 30.8.2014, (Ex.OP1/1); copy of application for first loan; (Ex.OP1/2); copy of history of loan transaction; (Ex.OP1/3); copy of proposal form;( Ex.OP1/4); copy of policy; (Ex.OP1/5); copy of NEFT form; (Ex.OP1/6); copy of cancelled cheque; (Ex.OP1/7); copy of letter; (Ex.OP1/8); copy of surrender value payment voucher; (Ex.OP1/9); copy of from of receipt; (Ex.OP1/10); copies of status report;( Ex.OP1/11 and Ex.OP1/12 )and closed the evidence.

11. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the written arguments.

12. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his averments as taken in the complaint and as detailed above.

13. It is submitted by learned counsel for complainant that the material facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased 'Money Back Insurance Policy' with basic sum assured of Rs.50,000/-. The complainant received first money back amount of 25% of the basic sum assured after 5 years, but opposite parties have not disbursed the second money back amount of 25% of basic sum assured in the year 2009. The complainant has asserted that this amount is not paid to her. This fact is also not disputed by opposite parties.

14. Learned counsel for complainant further submitted that the complainant was in dire need of money and applied for loan in the month of February, 2008. This fact is also not disputed. Opposite parties obtained the signatures of the complainant on some blank papers and blank printed forms with the assurance that loan amount shall be transferred in her account, but admittedly, no loan amount has been disbursed to her. The stand of opposite parties is that the loan was sanctioned and they have issued ULIP policy against this loan. The stand of the complainant is that her signatures were obtained on some blank printed forms. Opposite parties have placed on record proposal form, Ex.OP1/4 regarding ULIP policy. The sub heading of the last page of this proposal form is 'Authority Letter', its columns are still blank, but it also bears the signatures of the complainant. This fact sufficiently proves that the signatures of the complainant were obtained on blank printed forms, otherwise the complainant was either to fill up the columns under 'authority letter' or not to sign it. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that even otherwise as per the assurance, opposite parties should have given double of the amount after every 5 years, which is also proved from pamphlet, Ex.C2. The complainant was to get more than double of the amount after 5 years i.e. more than Rs.46,000/- in this case, but she has been paid only Rs.24,682/-. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to claim balance amount alongwith interest and cost.

15. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that the complainant never surrendered any policy and opposite parties of their own have sent the amount. Moreover, as per Clause 10 of Market Plus Policy, (Ex.OP1/6), which deals with surrender policy, if the balance in the policy holder unit account at any time is not sufficient to recover the relevant charges, the policy shall compulsory be terminated and balance amount in the policy holder account, if any, will be refunded to the policyholder. The balance in the policy holder account was never less at anytime to recover the relevant charges. The complainant neither opted for 'Market Plus Policy' nor its terms and conditions were sent to her. Therefore, these cannot be used against the complainant. To support these submissions, learned counsel for complainant has cited 2014(2) CPR 357 (NC) case titled The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satpal Singh through its Managing Director & Anr. It is also submitted by learned counsel for complainant that the documents tendered by opposite parties i.e. Ex.OP1/3, Ex.OP1/4, Ex.OP1/6 and Ex.OP1/10 are not complete and filled by the complainant, these have been prepared by opposite parties after obtaining her signatures on some blank printed papers and blank printed forms. Therefore, these documents cannot be read against the complainant.

16. It is also submitted by learned counsel for complainant that observations of Hon'ble National Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case of Ram Lal Agarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., & Anr. 2013(III) (NC), are not applicable in this case. The complainant has invested only small amount. It can be at the most to earn livelihood and not for commercial purpose.

17. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that the complainant has claimed recovery of Rs.21,318/-. As per the complainant, she was entitled for a sum of Rs.46,000/- against policy bearing No.300884874. The complainant has not produced the copy of this policy. Opposite parties have produced on record copy of this policy, Ex.OP1/5, which proves it is 'Market Plus Policy' i.e. 'Market Linked Policy'. Therefore, it is speculative policy. As such, the complainant is not a consumer and consumer Fora has no territorial jurisdiction to decide this matter. Thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. To support this submission learned counsel for opposite parties has relied upon 2013(III) (NC) titled as Ram Lal Agarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., & Anr.

18. It is further submitted by learned counsel for opposite parties that moreover documents produced on record proves that the complainant has availed the loan to invest in 'Market Linked Insurance Policy'. The proposal form, Ex.OP1/4 was signed by the complainant at her own, after fully understanding the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant herself acknowledged that she has signed these documents after understanding its contents. Of-course, some columns of proposal form are blank, but from this fact it cannot be concluded that its all columns were blank, when it is proved that the complainant has signed the proposal form after understanding its contents.

19. The execution of proposal form stands proved from other factors of the policy. As per the complainant, she has invested Rs.23,000/- in this policy. The complainant submitted that she was to get Rs.46,000/- in this policy after 5 years. In this way, the complainant has also not challenged this policy issued on the basis of proposal form, Ex.OP1/4. As per the complainant herself, she was to receive 25% of basic sum assured in the year 2009. The complainant has received first installment of 25% of basic sum assured in the year 2004. The complainant was fully aware, which forms were to be signed at the time of receiving 25% of basic sum assured. If the complainant has not received this amount in the year 2009, she was not to remain silent for the period of 5 years. These facts also show that the complainant has invested money in 'Money Back Policy'. From all angles the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

20. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

21. 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', but a perusal of this entire judgment will reveal that facts of the case in hand are quite distinguishable from the facts of the case of Ram Lal Aggarwalla. In the case in hand, the complainant has not pleaded regarding taking of any 'Market Linked Policy'. The categorical stand of the complainant is that she obtained policy namely 'Money Back Jeevan Sanchay Plan Insurance Policy', which is admittedly not speculative policy. Of-course, in written version, opposite parties have pleaded that the complainant has also voluntarily 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 complaint and not from the version put forward by opposite parties. Moreover in this case, the invested amount is only Rs.23,000/-, whether this investment is for commercial purpose or to earn livelihood is also to be decided after taking into consideration all the facts.

22. Now, coming on the main controversy. The complainant has alleged that Rs.46,000/- is due towards her, which were payable on 26.2.2013 and she was paid only Rs.24,682/- against this sum of Rs.46,000/-. As per the complainant, she is entitled for remaining amount of Rs.21,318/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. The stand of opposite parties is that the complainant filled up the proposal form and obtained another ULIP policy with the loan amount. Opposite parties have placed on file copy of proposal form duly signed by the complainant. Of-course, there are some blank columns, but from this fact alone, it cannot be concluded that the complainant has not opted for this policy or that her signatures were obtained on totally blank form, especially when from the other evidence it is made out that the complainant was having knowledge of ULIP policy. The plea of the complainant is that the second money back amount of 25% of basic sum assured was to be payable in the year, 2009, but it was not paid to her. The complainant has admittedly received 25% of basic sum assured after 5 years i.e. in the year 2004. Therefore, the complainant was fully aware about the procedure for the release of this amount. Thus, there was no question of putting the signatures by the complainant on some blank printed forms. Moreover in the proposal form, Ex.OP1/4, the complainant has written by her own hand that she has put signatures by understanding the contents. Therefore, it is proved that the complainant has filled up the proposal form willingly and after understanding its contents.

23. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant was not supplied policy alongwith terms and conditions is devoid of any merit. The stand of opposite parties is that the complainant was issued ULIP policy, which is produced on record by them. Of-course, opposite parties have not produced any record regarding issuance of policy, but it is addressed to the complainant and was issued in the year 2008. The complaint has been filed in the year 2014. If the complainant has not received the policy or its terms and conditions, she was not to keep silence for such a long period. Opposite parties were also legally entitled to destroy the dispatch register after 3 years from the issuance of the policy. Therefore, adverse inference cannot be drawn against opposite parties only for the reason that they have not produced any record to prove the dispatch of the policy. Admittedly, in the 'Market Linked Policy', the payable amount varies from time to time on the basis of market trend and as per terms and conditions. As per opposite parties, the complainant has been paid due amount, which was payable to her on that date. Opposite parties have placed on file NEFT form, Ex.OP1/6, which is signed by the complainant and witnessed by her husband Gurjant Singh and on the basis of this form, the amount has been transferred in the account of the complainant. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant has received this amount under protest. In such circumstances, it is to be inferred that the claim of the complainant stands fully satisfied.

24. In view the reasons recorded above, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Therefore, we have no option except to dismiss this complaint. As such, complaint is dismissed without any order as to costs.

25. This case could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency.

26. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

20-08-2015

(M.P Singh Pahwa)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member