DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  24^th  day of May, 2024

Present      :   Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

                    :   Smt. Vidya A., Member                        

                   :   Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                               Date of Filing: 14/03/2023    

              CC/74/2023

C. Premakumari,

W/o. V. Krishnamoorthy,

‘Karthika’,

Navakkode, Via Kuzhalmannam,

Koduvayur, Palakkad                                     -           Complainant

(By Adv. N.R. Mahadevan)

                                                                                      Vs

1. LIC of Inida,

Palakkad Branch I.,

Palakkad – 678 014

Rep.by Senior Manager,

2. Vishnu Mohanan,

LIC Agent,

Pranav Pearl Gold Covering Shop,

Ponnamma Buildings, Kallekulangara (PO),

Railway Colony, Palakkad – 678 009              -          Opposite parties

(O.P.1 by Adv. T.P. George

 O.P.2 by Adv. Shine Francis)

O R D E R

By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. Complainant is a policy holder of Jeevan Saral Policy floated by first opposite party. 2^nd OP  is the agent of 1^st OP, who induced the complainant to avail the said policy. 
2. Shorn of irrelevant materials, complainant’s pleadings pertain to non-grant of an amount that is the sum of 250 times the monthly premium, premium remitted and loyalty bonus as highlighted in the brochure.  After the maturity period, the opposite party paid a paltry sum of Rs.1,20,080/- and a loyalty bonus instead of Rs.5 lakhs as shown in the policy schedule. The complainant had availed the policy relying on the averments made by the 2^nd opposite party under inducement. This complaint is filed for balance amount after deducting the amount handed over after maturity period.
3. OP1 filed version maintaining that the amount of Rs.1,20,080/- and loyalty bonus of Rs. 66,400/- would be the only amount payable after the maturity period. Amounts as claimed by the complainant are the death benefits which would become payable only after the death of the beneficiary. This opposite party had acted only in accordance with the policy terms and conditions.
4. OP2 filed version stating that the complainant had availed the policy after understanding the terms and condition of the policy. In fact, the 2^nd OP is the nephew of the complainant.  The 2^nd OP had no intention whatsoever to deceive the complainant.
5. The following issues were framed for consideration:

1. Whether the O.P.1 has varied the Terms and Conditions of the policy?
2. Whether the brochure reflects the actual benefits available to the proposer?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of O.P.s 1 & 2?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
5. Any other reliefs?

6.         (i)      Evidence of complainant comprised of proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A5. Since copy of document sought to be marked as Ext. A6 was not served on the O.P.s, this document was rejected.

(ii)   O.P. filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. B1 to B6. Marking of Ext. B5 was objected on the ground that this document can only be taken judicial notice of and cannot be marked in evidence.

Ext. B5 is a notification issued by LIC. It is true that this Commission can take judicial notice, but such notice does not forbid marking such a notice in evidence Objection is overruled.  

            Issue No.1

7.         Complainant herein is aggrieved by the payment of Rs.1,20,080/- and Rs. 66,400/- alone by the 1^st OP after the maturity period. She, per complainant, is yet to receive and is entitled to 250 times amount of the premium (250 X Rs.2,000/-) i.e. Rs.5 lakhs.   OP1 relies on the terms and conditions of the policy. They state that since the amount was paid after maturity, she is entitled only to a sum equal to maturity sum assured in force after partial surrenders along with corresponding loyalty addition.  They also stated that the amounts, as claimed by the complainant is available only by way of death benefits.

8.         It goes without saying that the OP had paid the amounts as reflected in Ext.A1. Complainant has also admitted that she had received the amounts stated in the policy schedule and the loyalty bonus as well. Further the schedule is in harmony with the pleadings of the opposite party.

9.         Therefore, we are of the opinion that the opposite party had paid the benefit in accordance with the terms and conditions of Jeevan-Saral policy.  

 Issue No. 2

10.       Concluded discussion in issue No.1 notwithstanding, it is pertinent to note that the grievance of the complainant is that she was deceived by way of a brochure shown to her which highlights that she would receive a sum of  250 times the monthly premium, remitted premium excluding the 1^st year premium and the loyalty bonus. It is this amount, less the amount already paid, that she seeks in this complaint.

11.       The OPs, as already stated above, vehemently repudiated this claim for enhanced amount.  In order to substantiate her contentions, one of the documents relied on by the complainant is a brochure pertaining to Jeevan-Saral Policy issued by the 1^st O.P. There was no objection in marking the same. Said brochure was marked as Exhibit A2. The highlights of Jeevan-Saral Policy are shown in Ext.A2 is as below:

            എന്ത് കൊണ്ട് ജീവന്‍ സരള്‍  ?

• LIC യുടെ പ്രതിമാസ റിക്കറിംഗ് പദ്ധതി
• പോസ്റ്റ്‌ഓഫീസ്  RDക്ക് സമാനമായ പദ്ധതി
• 20 വയസുകാരനും 30 വയസുകാരനും ഒരേ പ്രീമിയം
• 3 വര്‍ഷത്തിനുശേഷം പണം ഭാഗിമമായി പിന്‍വലിക്കാം
• റിട്ടേണ്‍സ് മുഴുവനായും Tax  Free ആണ്
• ആട്ടോ കവര്‍ ആനുകൂല്യം 3 വര്ഷം പ്രീമിയം അടച്ച പോളിസികള്‍ക്ക് ലഭ്യമാണ്. 
• Extra   ലൈഫ് കവര്‍ : മാസ പ്രീമിയത്തിന്റെ 250 ഇരട്ടി  + അടച്ച മുഴുവന്‍ പ്രീമിയം (ആദ്യ വര്‍ഷ പ്രീമിയം ഒഴികെ) + ലോയല്‍റ്റി ബോണസ്

11.       It is settled law that a brochure forms part of the terms and conditions of an agreement. A brochure highlights the relevant and important features that are highlighted for a basic understanding of an offer made by one party to another. Even though a brochure might include only the parts that are attractive to the offeree, it should not be misleading.

12.       The last part of the said brochure highlights that a person would be entitled to 250 times the premium and other benefits.  It is these benefits that the complainant is claiming. But the OP has stated that this amount is not payable for the sole reason that this is a benefit payable on death of the beneficiary.  On perusal of Ext.A2, we could not find the statement made by the OPs that such a benefit is a death benefit. The wordings contained in Ext.A2 goes to make one believe that this sum is available once the amounts are due from the OP to the complainant. Ext. A2 does not differentiate between the rates payable upon maturity and upon death, eventhough this is a vital aspect of the scheme.  

13.       Such a statement held out would give a layman an impression that he or she would be receiving the benefits held out in Ext.A2 while the proposer is still alive. At the time of pleadings, evidence or hearing, the OPs had not bothered to clarify as to how they could advertise in a manner they had done by way of Ext.A2.

14.       To sum it up, Ext. A2 is misleading and misguiding and issued with partial/incomplete information without disclosing the vital aspects of the policy.

             Issue No. 3

15.       Based on the findings in Issue no. 2, we hold that OPs have resorted to unfair trade practice.

            Issue No. 4

16.       The complainant had claimed for the balance amount that would become payable in terms of the death benefits payable to a beneficiary. Having enrolled the complainant using unfair trade practices does not entitle the complainant to receive benefits of an agreement, which she is not otherwise entitled to receive.

17.       Therefore, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to receive the reliefs sought for.

18.       But the complainant is entitled to compensation for the unfair trade practice carried out by the OPs.

Issue No. 5

19.       In the result, based on the findings as noted supra, we hold as below:

1.         OPs 1 & 2 have resorted to unfair trade practice.  

2.         Each of the OPs are liable to pay an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs fifty thousand only) each to the complainant. 

3.         Complainant is entitled to a   cost of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) payable by the 1^st O.P.

4.         The above directives shall be complied within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the 1^st O.P. shall pay an amount of Rs.1,000/ per month or part thereof as solatium from the date of this Order till the date of compliance of the directives herein.

20.       Accordingly, this complaint stands allowed in part.

                        Pronounced in open court on this the 24^th  day of May, 2024.        

                             Sd/-                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                                                  Vinay Menon V

                                                                                   President

                                                                                         Sd/-

                          Vidya.A

                                              Member         

                               Sd/-

                Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                                                                   Member    

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1   -  Copy  of Schedule and conditions and privileges of LIC’s Jeevan Saral

Ext.A2  –  Photocopy of brochure of Jeevan Saral  

Ext.A3  -   Photocopy of   communication bearing reference No.773/Claim/Maturity benefit

Ext.A4  -  Copy  of communication issued by complainant.

Ext.A5  –  Copy of communication dated 28/12/2022  

Ext.A6 -   Original brochure of new Jeevan Santhi and Jeevan Akashay  

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:

Ext.B1  - Same as Ext.A1   

Ext.B2 – Copy of file and use procedure issued by IRDAI

Ext.B3 – Copy of sales brochure of Jeevan Saral

Ext.B4 – Copy of manual for agents

Ext.B5 – Copy of notification bearing No.GSR86(E) dated 2/2/2017

Ext.B6 – Copy of communication dated 20/11/2013 regarding withdrawal of products.

Court Exhibit:  Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

 Witness examined on the side of the complainant:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  Nil

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.