IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 31st day of May 2018
Present: Sri. P.SatheeshChandran Nair, President (I/c)
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Smt..Renu.P.Gopalan, Member
CC No.80/16/(Filed on 04/03/16)
Between:
Somakumar
S/o M.N. Kuttappan Assari
Mangattu House
Arpookara East PO
Kottayam-686 008
(By Adv. K.J.Devasia) …..Complainant
And:
- LIC of India,
Divisional Office
Repted by its Divisional Manager
(By Adv. Annie.C.Kuruvilla)
- Branch Manager
LIC of India,
Kanjirappally Satelite Branch
Madathil J.S
Shopping Complex, Petta Jun,
Kanjirappally PO 686 507…..Opposite parties
O R D E R
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, (Member)
The case of the complainant is as follows. He had taken a policy from the opposite party on 28-8-2010 for a sum assured of Rs.50,000/-. The term of the policy is 5 years. It was taken under salary saving scheme and mode of payment with a monthly premium payment of Rs. 922/- the policy was matured on 28-8-15. He was regular in making the monthly premium but due to some unexpected financial difficulties he could not continue to pay the entire monthly minimum till the date of maturity. A total amount of Rs. 31,086/- was paid towards the monthly premiums by the complainant. After the maturity period the complainant requested the opposite party to re-pay the amount paid by the complainant as premium to him. But making some untenable contentions the opposite parties denied the amount paid by the complainant. Thereafter the complainant caused a lawyer notice to the opposite party demanding the amount paid by him as premium to the insurance policy taken by him. Inspite of receipt of the said notice the opposite parties has not cared to pay the amount due to the complainant. The act of the opposite parties amounts to clear deficiency of service on their part towards the complaint. Hence this complaint.
The notices were served with the opposite parties. They appeared and filed their version contending as follows. It is true that the policy No. 392012553 was issued by the LIC under Endowment Assurance Plan (T 14) to the complainant. The policy commenced on 28-8-2010 term of the policy was five years and the monthly premium payable was Rs.922/-. The policy matured on 28-8-2015. The policy holder was Physical Education Teacher, MCV HSS Arpookkara and had given letter of authorization to deduct premiums from his salary in form No. Kt 135(KE) along with the proposal form dtd 28-8-2010. As such the cited policy was issued under Kerala Govt. Salary Deduction Scheme and the premiums were being remitted even month by the employer of the policy holder by deduction from his salary. Premiums under the policy have been received from the employer only upto June 2012 and premium due from May 2012 stood unpaid. Thus total 22 dues @ Rs. 922 amounting to Rs.20284/- only have been received by the opposite parties and the complainant’s claim that he has remitted Rs.31086/- towards the policy is not true. Life Insurance is a contract where both the Insurer and the Insured have certain obligations to fulfill. The insurer is obliged to pay the benefits as detailed in the policy document and the insured is required to remit the premiums till the end of the term opted by him in the proposal, which is the basis of the contract. If the premiums are discontinued, the policy holder is eligible only for the benefits stated in the conditions and privileges mentioned in the policy document. While submitting proposal dtd 28-8-2010 for the above mentioned policy the complainant has selected term of the policy as 5 years. As per the provisions contained in Payment of Premiums Clause 2 and Non-forefeiture Regulations Clause (Clause 4) of the conditions and privileges of the policy, the complainant is eligible for any benefits under the policy only if premiums are paid at lease for 3 years. Hence we are unable to make any payment under the policy. The policy conditions do not provide for refund of premiums on any contingency and LIC is not liable to repay the premiums paid by the complainant. As such there is no deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Exts.A1 to A3. The opposite parties filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Ext.B1 to B5.
Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version documents and evidences of both sides.
Points for consideration:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties?
- Reliefs and costs?
For the sake of proper disposal the Points No.1 and 2 considered jointly. The case of the complainant is that the premium amount was not refunded by the opposite parties ie LIC. According to him due to the financial stringency the complainant could not remitted the further premium. The opposite parties has taken a contention that there was no provision for refund the remitted premium amount if any only after remitted the premium for at least 3 years. According to the opposite parties the complainant is not entitled to get the refund of remitted premium amount as per the provisions of the LIC. From the submission of the complainant that he was remitted Rs.31,086/-. This was disputed by the opposite parties. The opposite parties submitted that the complainant had remitted Rs.20,284/-. Any way some amount was remitted by the complainant as premium for his policy. The stand taken by the opposite parties is not sustainable because the complainant was remitted the amount for his benefit. But according the complainant he has taken the policy for his life security. The term of the policy was 5 years. But some financial stringency the complainant could not remit the further premium as per the policy. However the complainant had remitted some amounts as premiums for his policy. So he was entitled for the remitted amount. The remitted amount was with the opposite parties till date. In our view that the complainant is entitled for the remitted premium amount. Opposite party 2 is the branch Manger of Opposite party 1 as such they are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. Hence the Points No.1 and 2 are found in favour of the complainant.
In the result the complaint is allowed as follows.
We direct the opposite parties to refund the remitted premium amount and pay Rs. 2500/- as compensation for inconvenience and pay Rs.2500/- as costs of these proceedings to the complainant.
The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order not complied within one month the amount will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of order till payment.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of May, 2018.
Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, (Member)
Sri. P.SatheeshChandran Nair, President (I/c) Sd/- Smt..Renu.P.Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1-Copy of policy certificate
A2- Copy of Lawyer’s n otice
A3-Postal receipts
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
B1-Copy of policy certificate
B2-Copy of proposal form
B3-Copy of Form No.Kt.135(KE)
B4-Copy of letter dtd 6/11/15 issued by the Manager(KGSD)
B5-Copy of Status report of policy No.392012553
Copy to:1) Somakumar
S/o M.N. Kuttappan Assari
Mangattu House
Arpookara East PO
Kottayam-686 008
2) LIC of India,
Divisional Office
Repted by its Divisional Manager
- Branch Manager
LIC of India,
Kanjirappally Satelite Branch
Madathil J.S
Shopping Complex, Petta Jun,
Kanjirappally PO 686 507
- Stock file
By Order
