State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri. Chittaranjan K. Kulkarni vs Lic Of India And Ors. on 6 July, 2017
1
[FA/01/164]
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Appeal No.FA/01/164
[Arisen out of Order dated 16/9/2000 passed by Ld. Thane District Forum
in consumer complaint No.263 of 1997]
Shri.Chittaranjan K. Kulkarni
Aditya Smruti, Unit No.1,
Behind Bank of India
Rajaji Path,
Dombivali (E) 421201
.... Appellant(s)
Versus
1.LIC of India
Dombivali MIDC Br.Office No.91-G
Dombivali MIDC (E) 421203.
2.Regional Manager (ACTL)
LIC of India
Western Zonal Office
'Yogakshema' (East Wing),
Jeevan Beema Marg,
Mumbai 400021.
.....Respondent(s)
BEFORE: Smt. Usha S.Thakare , Presiding Judicial Member
Shri.D.R.Shirasao, Judicial Member
PRESENT:
For the
Appellant(s) : Advocate Shri.Dhananjay Bhosale
For the
Respondent(s) : Advocate Shri.M.V.Damle
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Smt.Usha S.Thakare Presiding Judicial Member-
Being aggrieved by the order passed by Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane in consumer complaint no.263/1997, original complainant/appellant Mr.C.K.Kulkarni has filed appeal bearing 2 [FA/01/164] no.164/2001. By the impugned order, learned District Forum was pleased to dismiss the consumer complaint bearing no.263/1997 filed by complainant Mr.C.K.Kulkarni.
Facts giving rise to present appeal in short are as under:-
[2] Complainant had obtained 'ASHA DEEP II' policy bearing no.920667647 from the opponent no.1/respondent no.1 for sum assured of Rs.3,00,000/-. Agent of Insurance company Shri Bhagwat calculated the premium amount of Rs.7,459/-. Complainant paid first premium as per standard table 121 and the opponent issued receipt for the payment. Complainant came to know that the proposal is sent to Divisional office at Thane. However, in the month of November 1996, agent Shri Bhagwat informed to complainant that extra premium of Rs.668/- is charged. No reason was disclosed for extra premium. The complainant paid extra premium of Rs.668/-. Complainant received a letter asking him to give consent for extra premium. Said consent was not signed by the complainant. Complainant received policy contract under No.920667647. By issuing letter dated 25/04/1997, complainant asked reason from the opponent for extra premium. On 07/05/1997, opponent directed the complainant to remit second installment of premium including extra premium of Rs.668/-. It was informed that reason for extra premium would be communicated. On 04/06/1997, complainant was informed that extra premium was charged as per decision of Zonal Medical Referee. On this complainant informed to the Senior Branch Manager of LIC of India that his medical test reports were normal. Opponent no.2 vide letter dated 20/08/1997 informed that his ECG report was the cause for charging extra premium. It is alleged that if customer is failing in medical examination, he has a right to be informed about it before charging extra premium. Complainant lost faith in LIC because of this incident. Act of charging extra premium was arbitrary, malicious. Hence, complainant has filed consumer complaint with a request for direction to waive extra premium. He also 3 [FA/01/164] claimed compensation for damages.
[3] Opponent resisted the claim by filing written version and specifically denied allegations of deficiency in service. It is submitted that proposal for policy was made by complainant under 'Asha Deep (II) Plan on 24/07/1996. Policy is issued only to the standard lives. Case of the complainant was referred to the higher office i.e. zonal office along with report submitted by complainant for their decision. Zonal Medical Referee had on the basis of special reports given a decision to accept the proposal with physical extra premium @ Rs.4.45%. Information was given to the complainant by letter dated 26/11/1996. It was informed that the opponents are ready to accept the proposal of the complainant with physical extra of Rs.4.45% and, if he is agreeable, then he should send consent for the same as well as pay balance amount of Rs.668/- along with fresh proposal form and full medical report. Since the complainant had paid Rs.668/- towards extra premium and also sent fresh proposal form with payment of extra premium, it was implied that the complainant had agreed for extra premium, hence, policy was issued with extra premium. Opponent in reply to the letter of complainant and in his personal visit to the office explained that the decision to charge him physical extra was made by their Z.U.S. on the basis of various medical reports. Complainant had given consent for extra premium and payment thereof was made by him. Hence the policy was issued to him. The demand raised by the complainant is unreasonable and illegal. It is liable to be dismissed with costs.
[4] Both the parties led evidence by filing affidavits before the learned District Forum. After appreciating the evidence on record and after giving thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties, learned District Forum was pleased to dismiss the consumer complaint by impugned order. Being dissatisfied with the said order, original complainant/appellant has preferred the appeal. [5] Heard learned counsel Mr.Dhananjay Bhosale for the appellant and 4 [FA/01/164] learned counsel Mr.M.V.Damle for the respondent.
[6] It is vehemently urged on behalf of the appellant that order passed by the learned District Forum is illegal and incorrect. It is against the facts and merits of the case. Learned District Forum failed to consider that extra premium was paid under protest. Reason for charging extra premium was not communicated to the complainant/appellant by the respondent. Learned counsel Mr.Dhananjay Bhosale vehemently urged that order may be set aside by allowing the appeal to avoid injustice.
[7] Learned counsel Mr.Damle for the respondent supported the order and findings of the learned District Forum and requested to dismiss the appeal for want of merits.
[8] It is admitted that the respondent-LIC of India issued 'ASHA DEEP II' policy bearing no.920667647 to the complainant/respondent. The proposal filed by the complainant/ appellant was sent to the Divisional office at Thane. On decision of divisional office, extra premium of Rs.668/- was charged to the complainant/appellant. The appellant paid extra premium. Policy was issued on payment of extra premium. [9] It is to be noted here that policy was issued on 22/02/1997. Policy document is a document of contract between the parties. Said contract was never repudiated. On policy there is an endorsement that installment premium is inclusive of an extra premium. Policy was valid for period 15/11/1996 to 15/11/2011. Complainant/appellant who is a law graduate never refused to pay extra premium. Respondent specifically asked the complainant/ appellant whether he wanted to continue or discontinue the policy because of charging of extra premium and whether he wanted to claim refund of policy premium paid to the Insurance Company. [10] Learned District Forum rightly observed that once the complainant/ appellant had paid extra premium and having accepted the insurance cover, it was not open for the complainant/ appellant to agitate the said question. [11] Complainant /appellant was having every chance to repudiate the 5 [FA/01/164] contract and to take back the amount paid by him. He never demanded amount of premium paid by him at initial stage. On the other hand, he paid second installment of premium. He had every option to discontinue the policy.
[12] It is brought to our knowledge by learned counsel Mr.Damle that under policy risk is covered. Complainant/appellant wants coverage of risk. Therefore, he regularly paid installments of premium. Now the policy is at the verge of maturity. Complainant /appellant will get handsome benefit by way of bonus. At the same time, risk covered under policy will continue. We find substance in the arguments advanced on behalf of Mr.Damle. Conduct of the complainant/appellant shows that he wanted to continue the policy and, therefore, extra premium was paid and consent for extra premium was given. Learned District Forum rightly appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at a proper conclusion. We do not find any illegality and incorrectness in the order. Order passed by the Learned District Forum does not require any interference. It deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER 1] Appeal is dismissed.
2] Parties to bear their own costs.
One set of appeal compilation be retained and rest be returned to the appellant. Certified copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost. Pronounced on 6th July, 2017.
[Usha S.Thakare] PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER [D.R.Shirasao] JUDICIAL MEMBER Ms. 6 [FA/01/164]