National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Life Insurance Corporation Of India & ... vs Chaitanya Das, Advocate & Anr. on 2 January, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2972 OF 2010 (Against the order dated 26.4.2010 in Appeal No.1445/2009 of the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh) 1. Life Insurance Corporation of India Through its Senior Divisional Manager, Jeewan Prakash, 30 Hazrat Ganj, Lucknow 2. The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India 30, Hazrat Ganj, Jeewan Prakash, Lucknow .Petitioners Versus 1. Chaitanya Das, Advocate S/o late Shri Virender Singh R/o 240/13, Murtaza Hussain Road, Hahiyaganj, Lucknow 2. Ankit Kumar Nag, S/o late Ramshankar Nag, R/o 679, Rajender Nagar, Lucknow, Office -105, Ansal City, Behind Tulsi Talkies, China Bazar, Lucknow .....Respondents BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: In person For the Respondent No.2: NEMO PRONOUNCED ON: 02.01.2013. ORDER
PER MR.VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER The Life Insurance Corporation of India has filed this revision petition against concurrent orders of the District Consumer Forum, Lucknow and UP State Consumer Disputes Redressal, Commission. The delay of 10 days in filing the revision petition has been condoned, considering the explanation offered for the same.
2. The facts as seen from the record, relate to a Jeevan Shree life insurance policy taken by the Complainant Chaitanya Das (respondent No.1 in the present proceeding) in 2001. Allegedly, it was represented by the agent of the insurance company (OP-3/respondent No.2 in the present proceedings) that the quarterly premia had to be paid for 11 years and the policy itself would mature in 16 years. However, when the policy document was received, the Complainant discovered that the policy was to mature on completion of 25 years and not 16. This was not acceptable to the Complainant and he sought refund of the entire amount paid by him. Despite oral assurances, no payment was received and hence the complaint before the District Forum. By 26.11.2002, the Complainant had paid a total of Rs.38,000/-
being five instalments of the premium.
Thereafter, no further premia were paid.
3. Per contra, the stand of LIC before District Forum was that the agent does not fill up the proposal form. However, the written response of the OPs does accept that:-
Prior to filling up the Insurance Proposal Proforma, the Agent provides the entire information regarding the insurance policy to the Insurance Policy Holder/Proposer and the Agents gets the Proforma completed on behalf of the Insurance Policy Holder.
It was also stated that for payment of surrender value the policy has to run for a period of three years. In the present case the policy had lapsed in 2003. In November, 2003 the Complainant filled up the proforma for revival of the policy and also got medically examined towards the same. The policy was thereafter revived with effect from 01.12.2003. The complaint itself was filed on 26.2.2005.
4. The District Forum allowed the complaint holding that non-refund of the amount paid by the Complainant after the Complainant came to know that he had been issued a wrong insurance policy, amounted to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Refund of Rs.38,000/- was therefore, ordered with 9% interest and compensation of Rs.3000/- together with Rs.1000/- towards cost. The State Commission has partly allowed the appeal of the LIC limiting the relief to refund of Rs.38,000/- with 9% interest from the date of the complaint.
5. We have carefully considered the records as submitted by the revision petitioner/LIC of India and heard their counsel Mr. Nikhil Jain. The main contention of the revision petition is that:-
The respondent/complainant is a highly educated and legal expert person and under these circumstances, the statement of the respondent/complainant to the effect that he had appended his signatures on the simple papers/documents is beyond the stretch of imagination and belief, whereas on the date of filling up the Insurance Proposal Proforma i.e. on dated 05.11.2001 itself, the respondent has appeared before the doctor of the petitioner and got himself medically examined and he appended his signatures on the medical documents.
6. This contention is at best a very feeble attempt to find an explanation for what has happened. We have already quoted from the written response of the OPs before the District Forum. It comes very close to admitting the allegation of the Complainant that the proposal form was filled by the agent himself. Even before the District Forum, the revision petitioners confined themselves to merely arguing that:-
The complainant is an educated and legal expert person. If he had appended his signatures on the simple papers on the directions of the Opposite Party No.3 Agent, in that event the complainant himself is liable for this lapse.
This again is an indirect admission of the allegation of the complainant. Moreover, LIC did not examine the agent OP-3 before the District Forum, nor did it lead any other evidence to show that the proposal form was not filled up by OP-3. Therefore, this contention of the revision petitioner has no leg to stand on.
7. Learned counsel for the LIC has argued that the refund order was also questionable as the respondent/Complainant had already enjoyed the benefit of the insurance cover from 2001 to 2003. This argument also runs countered to the facts of the case. The case of the Complainant was that he received the policy document in February, 2002. Discovering that the policy period was 25 years and not 16 years, he immediately took up the matter with OPs.
He even stopped paying further instalments of the premium after 26.11.2002. No evidence to the contrary was led before the fora below. Therefore, the argument that he had availed benefit of the insurance cover, does not find any support from the records of the case.
8. From the details considered above, we come to the conclusion that the revision petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed as such. The petition is accordingly dismissed for want of merit.
.Sd/-
(J. M. MALIK, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-.
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER s./-