DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 354 of 26-08-2013

Decided on 24-01-2014

Sunita Rani wife of Dr. Mohinder Pal Bansal, C/o Kalra Nursing Home, Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.

…...Complainant

Versus

1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Division Office, Phase I, Dugri, Ludhiana, through its Senior Division Manager

2. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Shanky Jindal, counsel for the complainant.

For the opposite party : Sh. Gaurav Goyal, counsel for the opposite parties.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that she has purchased the insurance policy and deposited the premium towards it and an insurance policy No. 161421219 was issued to her. The complainant alleged that she used to pay the premiums of the said insurance policy upto date its maturity i.e. 5-10-2006. In the year, 2006, the complainant surrendered the policy with the opposite parties for payment and the insurance agent of the opposite parties got her signatures on various papers without disclosing their contents, but till date, no payment has been made to the complainant. The complainant further alleged that she made number of complaints with higher officials of the opposite parties as well as to different authorities, but despite her repeated requests, no payment of the due amount under the policy was made to her by the opposite parties. Ultimately, the officials of the opposite parties refused to make any payment and told the complainant vide their letter dated 17-4-2013 that another insurance policy No. 300544151 was issued to her in lieu of due payment against the policy in question. The complainant further alleged that she never purchased any alleged second policy nor any second policy was ever issued to her. Even the officials of the opposite parties refused to give any information regarding second policy and issued in lieu of balance payment, the policy in question. The complainant then approached the higher officials of the opposite parties and apprised them of the situation being faced by her, but to no effect and till date nothing has been done at their end. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to make payment of claim amount of insurance policy No. 161421219 alongwith accrued bonus and other benefits etc., under the policy in question alongwith interest and pay her compensation and cost.

2. The opposite parties filed their joint written statement and took legal objection that the complainant has purchased investment linked policy for earning profits and as such, she is not a consumer under the 'Act'. The opposite parties have pleaded that the complainant herself gave consent for adjusting the maturity amount of policy No. 161421219 to the tune of Rs. 1,43,562.93 against new market linked single premium policy and has filled the proposal form for the same. Accordingly, new market linked insurance (Pension Plan) policy No. 300544151 of Rs. 1,50,000/- was issued to the complainant and she made the balance payment in cash to the opposite parties. The opposite parties have further pleaded that the payment, if any, is made directly in the account of the policy holder through NEFT (National Electronic Fund Transfer) as per directions received from Government of India and in completing all the formalities i.e. right from the request of surrender upto making of the payment, it takes time to complete the whole process. The complainant was to receive the pension after maturity. However, the complainant and her husband Dr. Mohinder Pal Bansal who is also a complainant in other case requested opposite parties vide their application to make the payment in lump sum but the policy No. 300544151 being market linked pension plan, the payment cannot be made in lump sum. The opposite parties have denied that the insurance agent of the opposite parties got the signatures of complainant on various papers without disclosing the contents of the same to her for payment of the policy in question. The opposite parties have further pleaded that the complainant herself vide proposal form purchased the market linked pension plan and requested for adjusting the maturity amount of the earlier policy No. 161421219 against the present market linked pension plan and accordingly maturity amount of Rs. 1,43,562.93 was adjusted against new policy bearing No. 300544151 with single premium of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The complainant was issued the insurance policy which includes proposal form, terms and conditions of the policy etc., Further the opposite parties have issued a letter dated 6-10-2006 alongwith the policy documents which shows that the complainant was aware of the issuance of the other policy.

3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. These are admitted facts of the parties at this stage that previously complainant purchased insurance policy No. 161421219 which was matured on 5-10-2006. As per Ex. C-4, the matured payable amount of this policy was Rs. 1,43,562.93. The due matured amount of the said policy was not paid to the complainant and in lieu of it, another policy No. 300544151 i.e. LIC's Market Plus Table No. 181 policy Ex. C-5 was issued to the complainant against single premium of Rs. 1,50,000/- for five years term w.e.f. October, 2006, against which the payable amount of previous policy of the complainant was adjusted. Now, the policy in question has been matured on October, 2011, but till date nothing has been paid to the complainant.

6. The submission of the learned counsel for the complainant is that complainant purchased insurance policy No. 161421219 from the opposite parties and used to pay the installment upto the date of its maturity i.e. 5-10-2006. Thereafter the complainant surrendered the policy with the opposite parties for payment, but they refused to make the payment on the ground that another insurance policy No. 3005444151 was issued to the complainant in lieu of due payment under the policy in question. The complainant alleged that the agent of the opposite parties got signatures of the complainant on various papers without disclosing their contents.

7. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that the complainant paid the installments of the insurance policy No. 161421219 upto the date of its maturity i.e. 5-10-2006 and in the year 2006, she surrendered the policy and herself gave her consent to the opposite parties for adjusting the maturity amount of the said policy to the tune of Rs. 1,43,562.93 against new market linked single premium policy and filed the proposal form. Accordingly, new market linked insurance (pension plan) policy No. 300544151 of Rs. 1,50,000/- was issued to her and she made the balance payment in cash to the opposite parties. The learned counsel for the opposite parties further submitted that the complainant requested the opposite parties to make the payment of the policy in question in lump sum, but the payment of the said policy cannot be made in lump sum as it being market linked pension plan. The opposite parties have further submitted they are ready to release pension to the complainant as and when she gives option to them regarding receiving the pension monthly, quarterly, half yearly or annually.

8. The allegation of the complainant that the agent of the opposite parties got her signatures on various blank papers is not tenable as being the wife of doctor it cannot be expected from her that she can sign any document without knowing its contents. Moreover, admittedly the matured amount of the policy No. 161421219 was Rs. 1,43,562.93 and as per the opposite parties, since the premium of policy in question was Rs. 1,50,000/-, the difference of premium was paid by the complainant in cash. Ex. C-6 is the proposal for LIC's market plus plan, that has been placed on file by the complainant herself. This document has been duly signed by the complainant. A perusal of this form reveals that the complainant has opted plan 181; mode of premium is - single and fund selected is – Growth. Thus, the policy in question has been issued to the complainant after she signed the proposal for the same. Ex. C-5 is the policy in question. A perusal of this document reveals that term of policy is five years and accordingly maturity of this policy was in October, 2011, but admittedly till date nothing has been paid to the complainant. The pleading of the opposite parties is that the plan of the policy in question is the pension and complainant has not filed his option as to whether she wants to take option monthly, quarterly, half yearly or annually, but to prove this version, the opposite parties have not placed on file any document that they ever asked the complainant to give such option. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as the policy in question has matured in October, 2011 and till date nothing has been paid to the complainant.

9. Keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence placed on file, this Forum is of the considered opinion that although nothing has been mentioned in the proposal form Ex. C-6 that the policy in question is a pension plan policy, yet it is the admitted fact that complainant has opted for Plan No. 181 and fund is 'Growth Fund'. A perusal of policy in question Ex. C-5 does not reveal regarding pension. Thus, it would meet the ends of justice if the direction is given to the opposite parties to pay the due amount to the complainant against the policy in question alongwith complete detail of Plan 181 wherein it should be clearly mentioned that plan -181 of LIC is only a pension plan otherwise the complainant would be entitled for the whole due amount in lump sum.

10. The legal objection of the opposite parties that complainant is not consumer as she has purchased the investment linked policy for earning profits is not tenable as the policy in question has been purchased by the complainant which secures/covers the risk of her life also against which she has paid premium.

11. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted against the opposite parties with Rs. 3,000/- as cost and compensation. The opposite parties are directed to settle the claim of the complainant against policy No. 3005444151 and pay to her all the benefits of the policy in question keeping in view Table 181 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. From 1-11-2011 till realization. The opposite parties are also directed to furnish the detail of Table 181 in question to the complainant to make clear whether Table 181 is actually a pension plan or not. The opposite parties are also directed to pay the total amount in lump sum, if there is any option under the said policy or pay the half amount in lumpsum with above mentioned interest and the remaining amount will be paid in the shape of pension and for this, complainant will submit his option within 15 days from the date of receipt of detail from the opposite parties. The opposite parties are also directed to furnish the complete detailed statement of amount paid, to the complainant.

12. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

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

    Pronounced in open Forum

    24-01-2014

    (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

    President

     

     

     

    (Sukhwinder Kaur)

    Member

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member