BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.30/2012

Dated this the 7^th day of April 2015.

L.Sundararajan,

No.4, Anthoniar Kovil Street,

Behind Kandan Complex,

Kumara Guru nagar,

Puducherry-605 0011.                                                                   ….       Complainant

Vs.

1.  The Branch Manager,

     Life Insurance Corporation (No.802)

     No.4, Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001.

2. The Branch Manager,

    Life Insurance Corporation,

    Anna Salai, Puducherry.

3. The Divisional Manager,

    Life Insurance Corporation

    Vellore.

4. The Assistant Commissioner

    Employees Provident Fund Office

    100 Feet Road, Puducherry.                                                      ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

            THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

            PRESIDENT 

Tmt. PVR. DHANALAKSHMI, B.A.,B.L.,

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT                                 :  Party in person.

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: OP.1 to 3   :Thiru.S.P.Vassudevan, Advocate.

                                                                        OP.4   : Thiru.C.Elangovan, Advocate

O R  D  E  R

(By Thiru.A.ASOKAN, President)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to:

1. To direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,31,446/-
2. To direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for the petitioner mental agony.
3. To direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards registration of this complaint.
4. To pass such other orders as this Forum deem fit and prayer in the interest of justice.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

            The complainant had taken the policy under the scheme of Money Back policy in Policy No.730568459 from Life Insurance Corporation for the period of fifteen years i.e. from 28.08.1995 to 28.08.2009.  Further,  the complainant had agreed to transfer the yearly installment premium of Rs.4310/- his provident fund account No.PC/20/6297.  Based on this, the yearly premium of Rs.4310/- had been transferred from his PF Account NO.PC/20/6297 to the Life Insurance Corporation from 28.08.1995 to 28.08.2009.   The terms and conditions of the policy is the sum assured amount is Rs.50,000/-.  On the life assured surviving, after five years  and ten years from the date of commencement, 25% of the sum assured on the each survival date.  On the life assured surviving the stipulated date of maturity, 50% of the sum assured with accrued bonus.   On the life assured surviving of five years falls on the date of 28.08.2000, on the life assured surviving of 10 years falls on the date of 28.09.2005 and on the life assured surviving of the date of maturity falls on the date of 28.08.2010. 

3.         As per the above terms, the details of calculation and transferable amounts of complainant's life insurance corporation account to the provident fund account is 25% on the sum assured arrived at Rs.12,500/- has to be transferred to PF account on the survival date of first installment 28.08.2000 and for this amount the provident fund authority will pay the interest at 9.5% per annum till the period of maturity. Another 25% on the sum assured arrived amount of Rs.12,500/- has to be transferred to PF account on the survival date of 28.08.2005 and for this amount the provident fund authority will pay the interest at 9% till the period of maturity.  The remaining 50% on the sum assured arrived at Rs.25000/- and along with accrued bonuses of Rs.32,500/- tentatively have to be transferred to the provident fund account on the matured date 28.08.2010 and for this the Provident Fund Authority will pay the interest.

4.         The intimation will be received from the Life Insurance Corporation before one month period to the maturity date but the policy holder had not received any intimation even after lapse of three months from the date of maturity.  When the complainant approached the LIC Puducherry branch, they have reported that the yearly premium had been received only for the period of 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and afterwards the premium was shows as non-receivable and advised him to contact their Chennai office.  The Provident fund authority had transferred the yearly premium of Rs.4310/- for the year 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 and the total premium amount of Rs.17,240/- had been transferred in the year 2003-2004 and for the remaining installment periodically had been transferred till the year 2008-2009 without default. Even after receipt of yearly premium, the LIC branch of Puducherry had given the particulars that their accounts shown the receivable premium from the year 1996-1999.  It is the duty of the LIC to recover the premium without default.  The complainant has sent a registered letter on 15.07.2011 to LIC, Chennai to settle his claim.  Though the said letter was received by the LIC, Chennai,  there was no response from them.  Even the personal visit of the Complainant to LIC Chennai and another registered dated 25.04.2012 had not fetched any result.  Hence this complaint.

5.         The reply version of the first opposite party being adopted by the opposite parties 2 and 3 is as follows:

            The opposite party denies all the averments contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted in the reply version.  This opposite party admitted the facts that the complainant had not taken a life insurance policy on 28.08.2005 under plan and term 74/15(money back policy) for sum assured Rs.50,000/-.   Eventhough it is assigned to Regional Provident Fund Authorities, the yearly premium was received and adjusted upto August 1998 only.   Further, this opposite party did not receive the premium for first five years continuously from the said authorities i.e. upto August 2000.   Therefore the first survival benefit payable on completion of five years was not settled.   The Provident Fund authorities were not settled the premium amount in time and also they send the premium amount belatedly without any late fee, hence this opposite party could not settle the survival benefit to the complainant.   This opposite party has received cheque from Provident Fund Authorities for the dues August 2007 and August 2007 only on 01.10.2007 and 04.09.2009 respectively,  in such circumstances without receiving regular premiums, the survival benefits for the appropriate could not be made to the complainant.   As per non forfeiture regulations, since the policy is in default and not in full force, only a reduced paid up amount (i.e. for the premium paid for 4 years) can be paid as maturity benefit to the complainant. Hence pray to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

6.         The reply version of the fourth opposite party is as follows:

            This opposite party denies  all the allegations leveled against him in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted in the reply version.  The complainant is a member of Employees Provident Fund Scheme, allotted with EPF Account No.PC/20/6297.  The complainant has preferred to finance life insurance policy from his EPF Account as provided under para 62 of the Scheme.  The complainant has opened a policy bearing no.730568459 with the opposite parties 1 to 3 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and assigned this policy to the Provident Fund office for payment of the premium.  The said policy is a money back policy with an option to receive the survival benefit of 25% of the sum assured on completion of 5 years of the policy on each occasion and the remaining 50% of the sum assured along with accrued bonuses becomes payable on the date of maturity.

7.         It is further submitted that the opposite parties 1 to 3 has neither paid the two survival benefits nor forwarded the discharge voucher for claiming of matured amount and thus violated the terms of policy.  This office has paid the annual premium of Rs.4310/- from 1995 to 2009 to the opposite parties 1 to 3.   The said premiums were duly received by the opposite parties 1 to 3 and this office has not received any objections from the opposite parties 1 to 3.  The opposite party denies the rate of interest claimed by the complainant.   This opposite party had neither received any consideration or any indirect commission from the complainant for undertaking this work to attract the Consumer Protection Act.   This opposite party purely works for the welfare of the employees and free of cost and consideration. Hence this opposite party squarely falls out of the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act.   Hence this opposite party is the misjoinder of the necessary party and liable to be deleted from this case.

8.         On the side of the complainant, he has chosen to examine himself as PW.1 and marked Exs.C1 to C8.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 filed proof affidavit and not come forward for cross examination and no documents marked. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on the side of the fourth opposite party.

9.         Points for determination are:

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer to the opposite parties as per the Consumer Protection Act?
2. Whether any deficiency in service rendered by the opposite parties?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

10.       Point No.1:

            The complainant is admittedly member of Employees Provident Fund scheme of the fourth opposite party and availed Life Insurance Policy from the second opposite party.  Hence the complainant is the consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act.

11.       Point No.2:

            We have perused the entire records, the complaint's pleadings and reply versions of all the opposite parties and Exs.C1 to C8 and unmarked documents of opposite parties 1 to 3, the evidence of complainant and the affidavit filed by the Opposite Parties 1 to 3.  No documents and oral evidence adduced by the fourth opposite party.  From the records it is clear that the complainant has availed LIC policy from the opposite parties 1 to 3 and assigned it to the fourth opposite party for payment of premium to the opposite parties 1 to 3 as per the terms and conditions of the policy Ex.C1.  The fourth opposite party accepted the same and undertake to pay the premium from his Employees Provident Fund account periodically.

12.       The sum assured by the opposite parties 1 to 3 for the said policy is Rs.50,000/- and the yearly premium is Rs.4310/- for 15 years.  The policy is Money back policy under Table 74 and as per the terms of the policy the complainant is entitled for the benefit the life assured on surviving, after five years and ten years from the date of commencement 25% each of term and 50% of the sum assured with accrued bonus on maturity date.  The policy commenced from 28.08.1995 to 28.08.2009 and policy maturity date is 28.08.2010.

13.       The fourth opposite party has to pay the premium to the opposite parties 1 to 3 regularly without any break or delay.  But the fourth opposite party has taken the plea that they paid the entire premium and it was duly received by the opposite parties 1 to 3 without any objection.  The fourth opposite party did not file any documents to show that they paid the premium promptly.   On the other hand the opposite parties 1 to 3 filed reply and documents stating that "eventhough it is assigned to OP.4 -the Regional Provident Fund Authorities, the yearly premium was received and adjusted upto August 1998 only.  Further this opposite party did not receive the premium for first five years continuously from the said authorities i.e. upto August 2000.  Therefore the first survival benefit payable on completion of five years was not settled.  The OP.4- provident fund authorities were not settled the premium amount in time and also they had sent the premium amount belatedly without any late fee, hence this opposite party could not settle the survival benefit to the complainant.  This opposite party has received cheque from OP.4-Provident Fund Authorities for the dues for August 2007 and August 2009 only on 01.10.2007 and 04.09.2009 respectively, in such circumstances without receiving regular premiums from OP.4-provident fund authorities, the survival benefit for the appropriate could not be made to the complainant.  As per non forfeiture regulations, since the policy is in default, the policy is not in full force and only a reduced paid up amount (i.e. for the premium paid for four years) can be paid as maturity benefit to the complainant".

14.       We have perused the Ex.C5 filed by the complainant, it reveals that the fourth opposite party has paid the premium for the period of 2000 to 2003 only in the year 2003-2004 Rs.17,240/- as lumpsum. The fourth opposite party has paid for the period of 2004 to 2009 periodically but the period for 2007 and 2008 belatedly.  There is no proof shown by the complainant or by the fourth opposite party for the premium amount paid for the period of 1996 to 1999.  But the opposite parties 1 to 3 admitted that the premium credited in the complainant's policy for the period of 1995 to 1998.

15.       From the above facts, it is clear that the premium has not paid properly, continuously and periodically to the opposite parties 1 to 3 as per the terms of Ex.C1 and conditions.  There is no proof for the paid up premium for the period of 1999 and the fourth opposite party has mostly paid the premium belatedly as per Ex.C5.

16.       As per the clause 4 of the conditions and privileges, Non-forfeiture Regulations of the Ex.C1, the insured will get only to the proportionate to the paid up sum assured and for belated payment.

17.       From the record and as per the Ex.C1 and the plea taken by the opposite parties 1 to 3, the premium has not paid accordingly.  The fourth opposite party has failed to discharge their duty as entrusted by the complainant as assignee.  The complainant suffered loss and injury due to the negligent and deficiency in service of the fourth opposite party.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 is liable to settle the claim as per the terms and conditions of the policy Ex.C1.

18.       As per the discussion, it is clear that the fourth opposite party attributed deficiency in service due to their negligent act.  Eventhough there is no specific prayer against the fourth opposite party, they have to compensate the complainant for his loss and injury.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 have to settle the claim in accordance with the payment made as per the terms and conditions.  Hence this complaint is hereby allowed.

19.       Point No.3:

            In view of the decision arrived in point no.2, the fourth opposite party is directed to pay a sum Rs.20,000/-   as compensation to the complainant.  The Opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to settle the claim of the complainant as per the terms and conditions within one month of the receipt of this order.  The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost of the proceedings.

Dated this the 7^th day of April 2015.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS WITNESS:  

CW.1             26.12.2013                L. Sundararajan

OPPOSITE PARTY S WITNESS:  Nil

COMPLAINANTS EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY S EXHIBITS: Nil

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER