AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1985 against the impugned order dated 20.1.2015 passed
in F.A. No. 509 of 2014 by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) whereby
the State Commission allowed the appeal of the insurance company and set aside the order dated 21.4.2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sonepat (in short, ‘District Forum’).
The complainant, petitioner herein, alleged that he had deposited Rs.10,147/- per year from 11.1.2005 for eight years. The last installment was paid
on 11.1.2012 and he had totally deposited Rs. 81,176/-. The complainant submitted the documents for refund of the maturity amount after eight years,
which was promised to the tune of Rs.97,047/- by the agent of OP. The OP refused to pay the deposited amount under the garb that the complainant
had deposited the amount in Jeewan Nidhi Pension Plan Policy. Thus, it was alleged that the agent of OP played a fraud, also deposited the amount in
wrong policy. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Sonepat.
The OP filed written version before the District Forum and denied the allegations. OP submitted that the complainant had obtained the policy under
Table 169 for Annuity plan and there was no provision of making lump sum payment on any occasion. As per the terms and conditions (3) of the
policy, the complainant has to opt for Annuity options to receive his money. He need to opt either without commutation or with 1/3 commutation
option. The parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The complainant had never raised any objections during the
subsistence of the policy for eight years.
The District Forum, after hearing both the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the OP-1 to pay Rs.97,047/- to the complainant alongwith
interest @ 9% per annum from 11.1.2013 till realisation alongwith Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and costs. Being aggrieved, the OP/insurance
company preferred first appeal before the State Commission, Haryana. The State Commission allowed the appeal and consequently dismissed the
complaint. Hence, aggrieved by the order of State Commission, the complainant filed this appeal.
I have heard the arguments from both the parties. The Complainant/Petitioner had personally argued the matter and submitted that the agent of OP
made a false statement and mislead him about the policy structure; he never thought that the said policy was for Annuity Plan, but he took the policy
under the impression of the maturity plan believing the words of the agent, therefore, after the term of the policy, he do not want to receive money as
Annuity Plan. The complainant personally visited the Senior Officer of the OP and also contacted Ombudsmen for his grievance but there was no use.
The arguments of behalf of OP are that the complainant was a public servant worked as an Accountant, therefore, he is well aware of the terms
and conditions of the policy. To get more clarity about calculation of Annuity of the said policy and to know how the OP arrived at Rs.6,900/- as an
Annuity payment per year had calculated, we have called the Senior Officer from LIC. The Secretary of LIC, Mr. Praveen Kumar appeared at the
time of argument and brought my notice to the charts of calculation of the Annuity.
Learned counsel for OP initially submitted that on instructions, the OP is ready to pay amount of Rs. 81,176/- to put an end to this matter as a
settlement. Further, during the course of arguments, it was agreed. Learned counsel for OP took further instructions and was ready to settle the
matter at Rs.85,000/- but the complainant denied to accept the proposal from the OP. The complainant was insisting for higher amount on the basis of
bank interest at the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs. In my view, it was an unjust and hypothetical demand from the Complainant.
Admittedly, the complainant had deposited total amount of Rs.81,176/- and the total sum became Rs.97,047/-. I have perused the policy issued by
the OP and the proposal form also, which was produced at the time of arguments. The policy was issued as a Jeewan Nidhi Policy under plan 169-08-
08 but surprisingly, proposal form did not show whether the proposal was for LIC Jeewan Nidhi Policy and nothing was mentioned or clarified about
annuity plan, except plan, ‘169-8’.
At the time of argument, the complainant also had produced a letter dated 1.8.2012 wrote by the OP. On bare perusal of the said letter, the subject
mentioned was:
“Re : Policy No. 174254375 Under Pension Plan Jevan Nidhi Option to be exercised for payment of pension. â€
The complainant read the letter and came to know that the word ‘Pension’ was never disclosed by the agent of OP. He was under impression
that he will get lump sum amount after maturity paying yearly premiums for eight years i.e. after maturity. Therefore, the complainant had rejected the
Annuity payment plan and filed a complaint before the District Forum and claimed lump sum maturity amount. In my view, certainly, it was a mischief
played by the agent of the OP. The proposal form is also devoid of details pertaining to the name and type of policy and the purpose also. Just mere
writing the Table or Plan number ‘169-8’ is beyond the understanding and capacity of an ordinary prudent person. The concept of insurance is
based on ‘ Uberrima fide’ which is not unilateral, but it applied to both the parties. In the common parlance, most of the times, consumers are
allured by the words of agents. To get rid of such agents, believing his words, the proposer puts his signatures on the proposal form. To prove their
bona fide intention, OP had not filed any affidavit of the agent.
On perusal of calculation chart, it is admitted that the Annuity/maturity amount was Rs.97,047/-. According to OP, the complainant is entitled to
recive Rs.6900/- per year throughout his remaining life. It is pertinent to note that the meager amount of Rs.6900/- per year will take14 years to get
Rs.97,047/-. In my view, it is just an eyewash from the OP. Moreover, admittedly, complainant is receiving the monthly pension after retirement,
therefore, he was interested to receive the meagre amount of Rs.6900/- per year. Therefore, his prayer for lump sum amount is justified.
On the basis of foregoing discussion with the relevant facts, I am of the opinion that there was deficiency on the part of LIC and their agent. The
complainant had suffered unnecessarily. The complainant deserves to receive the entire lump sum amount of Rs.97,047/- alongwith interest.
In this context, I rely upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court inG urgaon Gramin Bank Vs. Khajani & others (IV (2012) CPJ 5 SC,)
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had made strong observations and expressed its displeasure about the litigation for paltry and trivial matters
and finally held that:
“…….. In our view, these types of litigation should be discouraged and message should also go, otherwise for all trivial and silly matters people
will rush to this court.â€
The revision petition is hereby allowed and the order of State Commission is set aside. The OP is directed to comply with the order of District
Forum, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, entire amount will carry interest @ 12% per annum till its
realization. However, there shall be no order as to costs.