Haryana

StateCommission

A/676/2018

V.K. BHANDARI - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

PANKAJ MEHTA

10 Apr 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

               

                                                         First Appeal No.676 of 2018

Date of Institution:23.05.2018                                                               Date of Decision: 10.04.2019

V.K.Bhandari, S/o Sh. Shri M.L.Bhandari, R/o H.No.113, Green Park, Hisar, Distt. Hisar.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      L.I.C.  of India, through its Branch Manager, U.E., II Hisar.

2.      Divisional Manager, LIC of India, SCO 3,4,5 Sector-1, HUDA, Rohtak.

…..Respondents

CORAM:             Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs.Manjula, Member

 

Present:              Mr.Pankaj Mehta, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The brief facts given rise for the disposal of the present appeal are as such, complainant has purchased life insurance policy  for Rs.Two lacs from the O.Ps.  The annual premium of amount of Rs.20325/- was paid regularly from 2001 to June 2010.  Only 10 installments were paid upto August 2010, the total samount of Rs.2,03,292/- was charged by LIC against policy for Rs.Two lacs. At the time of taking the policy,  the development officer of the department assured that on maturity, the double of the insured amount will be paid, but, LIC has not paid the amount as per assurance.  The maturity amount of Rs.3,33,600/- was refunded on 04.07.2016. All types of bonus was paid but no loyalty bonus was paid.  Upon inspection in the office of LIC, actually the maturity amount was paid on 04.07.2016. The bank rates were revised from time to time, but, benefit was not given to the original customer.    Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that no such assurance of double insured amount was given at the time of maturity by the officer of LIC.  At the time of maturity SA + bonus was given on the life assured.  The O.Ps. have paid maturity amount of Rs.3,33,600/-.  Neither any extra demand of Rs.3487/- was made nor any extra amount was paid by the complainant.  Loyalty addition was not payable under the policy.   The O.Ps. were not liable to pay the interest as alleged by the complainant.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

3.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (In short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint vide order dated 29.12.2017.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

5.      This argument has been advanced by Mr.Pankaj Mehta, the learned counsel for the appellant has heard at length. With his kind assistance the entire file had also been properly perused and examined.

6.      There is delay of 83 days in filing of the present appeal. The appellant has moved an application seeking condonation of delay. However, an affidavit has been tendered with the prayer to condone the delay.

7.      It is well settled principle of law that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity and generosity and for condoning delay each and every delay has to be explained.  Having considered the explanation furnished on behalf of the respondent, we think that it is not a fit case to condone the delay.  Hence, the prayer for condonaton of delay is rejected.

8.      Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant vehemently argued that at the time of taking the policy, the development officer gave assurance to the complainant that on maturity, the amount will be paid double of the insured amount, but, LIC has not paid.

9.      It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the life insurance policy from the O.Ps.   It is also not disputed that upon maturity, the O.Ps. have paid the insured amount to the complainant.  Perusal of the file shows that no such assurance was given to the complainant by the official of the department or the agent of the O.P. Since the maturity amount of Rs.3,33,600/- was refunded on 04.07.2016 which was due on 08.06.2016.  The complainant-appellant is not entitled for any other relief as prayed for. There is no substance in the appeal, as such, the appeal is devoid of merits stands dismissed.

 

April 10th, 2019       Manjula                                 Ram SinghChaudhary,                                                    Member                                 Judicial Member                                                                 Addl. Bench                         Addl.Bench             

S.K.