Order No.  7  dt.  22/11/2016

                The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is a Senior Citizen    of  a nationalized Public Sector Company.  The complainant took the Market Plus policy from the LIC of India  through an Agent of LIC on 28.06.2010. The complainant paid Rs.20,000/- for a single payable premium LIC Market Plus Policy. The complainant tried to keep contact with the agent but he could not be contacted. Subsequently whenever the complainant did not get the Insurance Policy, the complainant checked the LIC’s portal and found that LIC,CBO-9, Kolkata has issued the Market Plus against the cheque of Rs.20,000/-. The complainant raised his redressal of his grievance regarding the earlier policy and non-receipt of policy bond. whenever the  complainant the found he did not get any reply from LIC. The complainant again sent an email to Regional Manager Redressal Officer who informed the complainant that  he will try to resolve the dispute within 15 days. The complainant thereafter left Kolkata for a few days on his return  he found that LIC has sent a policy but the policy was sent by mentioning therein that the complainant will have to pay Rs.20,000/- per annum for next 10 years wherein the complainant did not want to invest and he paid the premium for a single payable premium of Rs.20,000/- Market Plus Policy. Since the wrong policy was issued the matter was reported to Hon’ble Insurance Ombudsman  whereby it was ordered  that the LIC would issue a policy rectifying the mistake. In spite of such order the Insurance has not rectified the policy for which the complainant filed this case praying for compensation for Rs. 1,00,000/- and also for litigation cost.      

                The OP contested the case by filing a w/v whereby the Ops denied the material allegation of the complaint. It was stated that the Ops took all necessary steps to correct the mode of the premium from yearly to single . However, due to certain technical defect the same could not be executed immediately but the necessary correction has already been done and affected in the policy master of said policy no.494678958 as per the desired of the complainant.  In view of the said fact the OP prayed for dismissal of the case.

Decision with reasons :-

                Complainant himself argued that the  complainant invested the amount of Rs.20,000/- for a single premium but the Ops converted into the yearly premium for the period of next 10 years which the complainant objected. The complainant after seeing the policy lodged his protest but no action was taken  by the Ops. Ultimately  the complainant had to lodge a complaint before the Hon’ble Ombudsman who directed the Ps to rectify the policy  by incorporating therein that the amount was paid for one time premium. The LIC did not rectify the policy. Therefore, the complainant had to file this case.

Decision with reasons

                Ld. lawyer for the Ops argued that the case is barred by limitation since the case was not filed within two years and the  policy was rectified but due to some technical defect the policy was not rectified. Immediately after the order passed by Ld. Ombudsman. the correction has been made and effect in the policy master of the said policy bearing no.494678958 as per desired of the complainant.

                Considering the submission of the respective parties it appears that the complainant is a retired Govt. Officer and after retirement he purchased a policy by paying One Time Premium of Rs.20,000/- but he was not provided  policy mentioning  therein that  the policy was for One Time Premium on the contrary it was mentioned  that the complainant will pay  Rs.20,000/- per annum for a continuous period of 10 years. The complainant being a retired person it was not possible for him to pay Rs.20,000/- p.a. for the next 10 years and accordingly he requested the Ops to change  the policy but no action was taken on the part of the Ops. Subsequently after the lodging of the complaint before the Ld. Ombudsman and as per order of Ld. Ombudsman to rectify the policy by converting  the same to One Time Premium of the said policy but the Ops failed to comply the order. Subsequently, though the complainant made several correspondences with the OPs  but no intimation was given to the complainant to that effect. Policy was rectified after the filing of the case the OPs  informed  that the rectification has been made . Since no step was taken by the OPs immediately after the said direction of Ld. Ombudsman . Complainant had to file this case seeking his grievance. Therefore we hold that there was  deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and complainant will be entitled to get  the litigation cost.

                Hence, ordered,

                That the CC No.156/2016 is allowed  on contest  in part. The complainant will be entitled to get  Rs.2,000/- for compensation and Rs.1,000/- for litigation cost. OPs are jointly and severally directed to liable to pay the amount of Rs.3,000/- ( Rs.2000/- for compensation + Rs.1,000/- for litigation cost) where also directed to pay the said amount within 30 days from this date.

                Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.