MANGAL SINGH vs LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

THE Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 17.01.2013 in FA/1039/2010, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, ''State Commission ''). The State Commission set aside the orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, District Forum '') in Complaint no. CC/33/2009.

FACTS in brief are that the complainant, Sh. Mangal Singh, a retired BSF Constable, who, during his service, when posted at Kassowal, took a life insurance policy, through his department from the OP -1, LIC of India, for a sum of Rs.2000/ - vide policy no. S23123746 dated 20.02.1970 for 15 years term. The policy was to mature on 20.02.1985. His wife was nominated as nominee. The complainant authorized the Commandant, 21st Battalion, BSF, HQ Dera Baba Nanak (OP -2) to deduct the monthly premium from April 1970 and same be deposited with LIC - OP -1. The said policy got matured on 20.02.1985, but nothing was paid to the complainant. Therefore complainant wrote a letter to OP -2, on 5.4.2009 and another to OP -1, on 5.5.2009, but no avail. He approached the Ombudsman at Chandigarh, Mr. K. M. Chaddha, who, on 6.8.2009, ordered the OP -1 to consider the claim of complainant, even then complainant did not receive maturity amount. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before District Forum, Barnala on 14.9.2009, alleging deficiency in service by OP -1, for non -payment of the maturity amount which caused mental tension and harassment. The District Forum, allowed the complaint and directed the LIC to make payment of the maturity amount, along with the interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of maturity, till payment and compensation of Rs.25,000/ - and costs of Rs.5,000/ -.

THE OP -1 LIC, filed the first appeal before the State Commission, which partly allowed the appeal and set aside the compensation of Rs.25,000/ - on the ground that interest and compensation cannot be awarded together.

HEARD counsel for both the parties. There is a delay of 98 days in filing this Revision Petitions, which has been explained in the application for condonation of delay, which runs as follows: The Petitioner is a retired constable from the Border Security Force and does not have the means to pursue his case. The Petitioner has a very basic literacy in Punjabi and does not understand or comprehend English or Hindi. After the passing of the impugned order by the State Commission, Punjab the Petitioner received on 30.01.2014 and since the Petitioner is a poor villager who has retired from active service long back, he was devoid of any financial means to engage a lawyer at Delhi. The Petitioner wrote a letter to the Delhi Legal Services Authority for legal assistance. The Petitioner was granted legal assistance, however, the letter of appointment dated 22.03.2013 of the undersigned counsel as the legal aid counsel was not received by the Petitioner. The Petitioner, thereafter under the RTI Act, sought information from the DLSA and was informed vide letter dated 05.06.2013 received on 11.06.2013, that the undersigned was appointed as Legal Aid Counsel. The Petitioner sent a letter to the undersigned Counsel in 12.06.2013 and since the undersigned counsel was also out of town, during vacations, the Petitioner was told to contact by the undersigned counsel on 24.06.2013, but since the Petitioner did not have the entire file of the Appeal filed before the State Commission, Punjab, the Petitioner was advised by the Counsel to contact the Counsel at Chandigarh to get the entire file to enable the undersigned Counsel to file the Revision I accept the reasons as a genuine one and condone the delay of 98 days in filing this revision. The Counsel for OP -1 (LIC) vehemently argued that the complainant took policy, through the OP -2, in the year 1970, and the same matured on 20.02.1985, but the complainant never enquired or bothered to know about the status of policy for 24 years, therefore, the present complaint was filed after 24 years, which is hopelessly time barred. The Counsel for OP -1 put reliance upon judgment of Hon ''ble Supreme Court in SBI vs. M/s B.S. Agricultural Industries decided on 29.03.2009 in Civil Appeal No. 2067 of 2002 on the point of limitation, under Section 24 (A) of the Act. The Counsel for complainant argued that OP -LIC, have not produced any record to show that the premium was not received from OP -2. Also, the LIC never served any notice, either upon the complainant or the Commandant, BSF (OP -2), to pay the premium, if the same was not paid. Therefore, LIC cannot take the plea that the premium was not paid. The OP -1 neither informed about the maturity of the policy nor sent the maturity amount to the complainant, till 24 years.

AFTER perusing the policy, the date of maturity and a letter of authorization given by complainant for deduction of premium, clearly go to show that the cause of action, still persists. It appears to be a mistake on the officials of OP -1, hence OP -1, cannot shirk from its liability on the ground of limitation.

IT is rather surprising that the LIC, a major insurance company in India, having assets in billions; dragged the poor complainant to the unwanted litigation. Even after lapse of 25 years, LIC wants to repudiate claim, for a maturity amount, which is justifiable. The complainant had to run from pillar to post, after his retirement. Instead, it was an ethical obligation of LIC to extend a helping hand to a retired Ex -Constable of 21st Battalion BSF of India, who, with utmost good faith, on LIC, took a policy for sum of Rs.2,000/ - when he was on duty, in a sensitive area during the year 1970. It was the bounden duty of OP -1 to pay maturity amount in year 1985 itself. It was just a meager amount of Rs.2,000/ -. Therefore, in view of the decision by Hon ''ble Supreme Court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank vs. Smt. Khazani and ANR. [Civil Appeal No. 6261 of 2012 @ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8875/2010] by a bench of Hon ''ble Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra, while expressing disapproval at the tendency to drag every small matter, up to the Supreme Court. The bench observed : - "Unless serious questions of law of general importance arise for consideration or a question which affects a large number of persons or the stakes are very high, court''s jurisdiction cannot be invoked for resolution of small and trivial matters. We are really disturbed at the manner in which those types of matters are being brought to courts, even at the level of the Supreme Court." Also, this Commission has taken similar view in several other petitions. In the instant revision petition, the LIC has unnecessarily dragged the matter for a meager maturity amount of Rs.2000/ -, for more than two decades. It is absolutely improper and unfair. Considering the complainant ''s poor condition who sought Legal assistance from Delhi Legal Services Authority, one cannot ignore his yeomen services to our Nation as a BSF Constable. Therefore, he deserves sufficient compensation for his suffering and for the deficiency in service due to conduct of OP -1

THEREFORE , the OP -1 is liable. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order passed by the State Commission. The entire order of the District Forum is restored, with additional punitive cost of Rs.25,000/ - to be paid to the Petitioner/complainant. The LIC (OP -1) is directed to comply with this order within 90 days; otherwise it will carry 9% interest p.a., till its realization.