Life Insurance Corporation of India vs B.N. SAHAY

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 30.12.92 passed by the District Forum, Patna in Case No. 187 of 1992 in which the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation was the opposite party No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 here was the opposite party No. 2 and respondent No. 1 here was the complainant before the District Forum. The parties are being referred to hereinafter by the nomenclature which they had before the District Forum.

THE facts of the case may be briefly stated. THE complainant happens to be an I.P.S. Officer and he retired from the service in the year 1976. THE complainant had taken an Insurance Policy with Life Insurance Corporation bearing Policy No. 57237942. THE complainant assigned this policy to the Accountant General (O.P. No. 2) because the premium of the policy was to be paid from the G.P.F. Account of the complainant with the O.P. No. 2. It appears that the policy was declared surrendered in July, 1959 due to non-payment of the premium and the surrender value of the policy was Rs. 4,091/- and that it was treated as a paid up policy with effect from 14.7.60 and it matured for payment on or before 11.2.73. THE complainant asked A.G. Bihar for release of his policy so that he may receive the amount of Rs. 4,091/- which he was entitled to under the policy. THE O.P. No. 2 wrote to O.P. No. 1 for the return of the policy so that it may be handed over to the complainant. But O.P. No. 1 admitting that the policy Bond was with them, informed the opposite party No. 2 by letter dated 13.1.75 that a discharge voucher for Rs. 4,091/- had been sent by the Insurance Company to the O.P. No. 2 to be returned after duly executed but it was not returned to the Insurance Company and that a fresh voucher was being sent for execution and return and thereafter payment would be made. But the said discharge voucher was never received in the office of O.P. No. 2. As the discharge voucher was not sent by the Insurance Company the amount was not paid to the complainant by the Insurance Company. Hence the complainant filed case before the District Forum, Patna claiming Rs. 13,626.19 Ps. alleging negligence on the part of the opposite party. On being noticed both the opposite parties appeared and filed written version. The opposite party No. 1 has in its version stated inter-alia that the concerned file of the policy was destroyed long back and therefore it was not possible for the Insurance Company to say anything with regard to the claim of the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 in its written version has inter-alia averred that registered letter No. FD(M)G-200-201 dated 13.7.92 was sent from his office to the opposite party No. 1 for sending the policy bond and discharge voucher but no response was received from O.P. No. 1 and that there was no negligence on the part of the O.P. No. 2.

The complainant filed his sworn affidavit before the District Forum in support of his case. He has stated in this affidavit that he never received any amount against the Policy No. 57237942 and that he contacted the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 several times personally with regard thereto but in vain.

THE District Forum after taking into consideration the materials on record including the affidavit of the complainant has directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 13,626.19 to the complainant and a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- for the mental anguish and physical inconvenience caused to him due to deficiency in service on the part of the L.I.C. We have heard the learned Counsels for both the parties. It appears from the photostat copy of the letter dated 31.1.75 sent by the L.I.C. to the Accountant General, Bihar, annexed by the complainant to the complaint petition that the Policy Bond is with the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company had earlier sent a voucher to O.P. No. 2 asking them to return the same after duly executed but it was not received by the Insurance Company and hence a fresh voucher was being sent by the L.I.C. alongwith that letter to O.P. No. 2 for execution and return. It appears that a copy of that letter was sent by the L.I.C. to the complainant and also to the PHS General, Patna D.O.L.I.C.I with the file of the policy for the registration of the assignment in favour of the A.G. Bihar with a request to send back the papers to the L.I.C. It further appears from the endorsement dated 22.1.92 made on the back of that letter dated 31.1.75 that an officer (R.S. Singh) of the A.G. Bihar asked the complainant to come with a discharge voucher duly forwarded by the LIC for the signature of the A.G. Bihar, Patna. As stated above registered letter dated 13.7.92 was sent by the opposite party No. 2 to opposite party No. 1 for sending the policy bond and discharge voucher. The opposite party No. 1 (LIC) has not challenged the claim of the complainant. It has been simply stated in the written version on their behalf that they are not in a position to say anything with regard to the claim of the complainant because, the record has been destroyed under the rules.

HENCE we see no reason to disbelieve the statement made by the complainant on sworn affidavit that he has not received any amount under the policy. Of course it has been submitted on behalf of the appellant - L.I.C. that the claim of the appellant is stale one and therefore it has to be outright rejected. But it may be mentioned that from the photostat copy of the aforesaid letter dated 31.3.75 sent by the L.I.C. it is evident that the copy of the letter had been issued on 22.1.92 and on the same day it was sent to Sri Sahay the complainant with an endorsement made by the officer of the A.G. Bihar asking Sri Sahay - the complainant to come with the d is charge voucher duly forwarded by the LIC for the signature of the A.G. Bihar. Moreover, with the rejoinder by the complainant to the written version filed by the L.I.C. before the District Forum the complainant has annexed a photostat copy of the letter sent by the A.G. Bihar to the Divisional Manager, L.I.C. with regard to the policy of me complainant a copy of which letter was forwarded to the complainant on 13.7.92 that the Manager (Claim) of the L.I.C. had a discussion with the two officers of the A.G. Bihar with regard to the claim of the complainant on 9.7.92 and 10.7.92 to whom the need for the discharge voucher and the policy was stressed. Under these circumstances the claim of the complainant cannot be stale, other it appears that correspondence between the O.P. No. 1 and the O.P. No. 2 was going on for payment of the claim even in July, 1992 - after the institution of the case by the complainant before the District Forum. Hence we are not inclined to sustain this objection on behalf of the appellant. Under these circumstances the District Forum was quite justified for accepting the case of the complainant and order for payment of Rs. 13,626.19 inclusive of the interest payable on the amount for which the policy was declared paid up. But we are of the opinion that the payment of Rs. 2,000/-as compensation for physical inconvenience and mental anguish to the complainant is not required as the complainant will be adequately compensated by the payment of interest on the amount payable under the policy. With the above modification in the order passed by the District Forum, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

THERE is however no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.