DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 576 of 23-12-2013

Decided on 01-07-2015

Som Dutt alias Somi, aged about 40 years S/o Sh. Dal Chand R/o Near Bus Stand, 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. Gaurav Aggarwal, counsel for OPs.

O R D E R

M.P.Singh Pahwa, President

Som Dutt, 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'.)

Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that opposite parties are service oriented company. The agent of the opposite parties approached the complainant at his residence and allured him to purchase Money Back Plan Policy. It is mentioned that it was conveyed to the complainant that life assured has to deposit 40 half yearly installments of Rs. 1657/- each with the opposite parties. The policy is money back policy and the life assured shall get 20% of the basic sum assured of Rs. 50,000/- after every five years. At the time of maturity of policy, remaining 40% amount alongwith interim bonus, vested bonus and other benefits thereon shall be paid to the life assured as per policy. The complainant further pleaded that being allured by agent, he opted for purchase of said Money Back Policy of the opposite parties and paid Rs. 1,657/- as first premium on 28-5-2003. The opposite parties issued policy No. 300127813 with Table and Term 75-20-20 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 the opposite parties. The opposite parties were duty bound to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the life assured in May, 2008 being money back policy which has not been 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. 10,000/- to be paid in the month of May, 2008, 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. 10,000/- 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. 10,000/- and opposite parties have shown the payment of Rs. 10,000/- to him vide cheque No. 0734065 dated 28-5-2008, but actually no such amount has been received by the complainant. The complainant got issued registered letter dated 10-11-2013 posted on 18-11-2013 to the opposite parties, requesting 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. 10,000/- 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 is false and vexatious; complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts.

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, new ULIP Policy No. 300886861 was issued to the complainant which was duly sent to him and the said policy is in force till date. Cheque No. 0734065 dated 28-05-2008 for Rs. 10,000/- was reinvested through accounting system of the Corporation as per instructions of the complainant.

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.

On merits also, the opposite parties have controverted all the material averments. It is admitted that opposite parties have floated Money Back Plan Policy. It is admitted that complainant purchased insurance policy after understanding terms and conditions. It is also admitted that opposite parties issued policy No. 300127813 with table term 75-20-20 with sum assured of Rs. 50,000/- and complainant paid first premium of Rs. 1657/-. It is specifically denied that agent of the opposite parties allured the complainant. It is admitted that opposite parties were duty bound to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the life assured in the month of May, 2008. Accordingly, Cheque No. 0734065 dated 28-5-2008 for Rs. 10,000/- was issued to the complainant. However, on the request of the complainant new ULIP Policy No. 300886861 was issued to complainant which was duly sent to him and the said policy is in force till date. After controverting all the averments, opposite parties 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 20-12-13 and 12-8-14 (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-8), copy of payment receipt (Ex. C-2), copy of letter & postal receipt (Ex. C-3 & Ex. C-4), copies of status reports (Ex. C-5 to Ex. C-7).

In order to rebut this evidence, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of K L Khichy dated 11-3-14 (Ex. OP-1/1), affidavit of Sham Lal dated 16-9-2014 (Ex. OP-1/2), photocopies of statements (Ex. OP-1/3 & Ex. OP-1/4), photocopies of proposal forms (OP-1/5 and OP-1/7) and photocopy of policy (Ex. OP-1/6). Complainant has also submitted written arguments.

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

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 on 28-5-2003. It is also not disputed that after five years i.e. in the year 2008, the complainant was entitled for Rs. 10,000/- being survival benefit. 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-1/5. The complainant has alleged that in the year 2008 when he went to inquire about Rs. 10,000/- which was payable, his signatures were obtained on some blank papers and printed forms. The proposal form Ex . OP-1/5 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. 10,000/- is shown made to the complainant vide cheque dated 28-05-2008. 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 2008 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 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 5 years. This fact also shows that complainant was fully aware that his amount of Rs. 10,000/- 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. 10,000/- was payable to him in May, 2008 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, 2008, he made inquiry for non-receipt of Rs. 10,000/- and his signatures were obtained on blank printed papers and forms and he was assured that the amount will be sent shortly. The amount of Rs. 10,000/- was due on 28-5-2008 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 five years from the due date. This fact lead to the inference that complainant was fully aware that he has re-invested Rs. 10,000/- in another policy. Otherwise complainant was not to wait for such a long period of more than five 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. 10,000/-.Despite this stand of the opposite parties, complainant in his affidavit Ex. C-8 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 :

01-07-2015

(M.P.Singh Pahwa )

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh )

Member