State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sandhya Roy vs Lici on 30 April, 2014
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal 11A, MIRZA GHALIB STREET, KOLKATA 700 087 S.C. CASE NO FA/93/2013 (Arisen out of Order Dated 11.01.2013 in Case No. CC/130/2011 of Unit-II, Kolkata District DF) DATE OF FILING :28.01.2013 DATE OF ORDER:30.04.2014 APPELLANT : Sandhya Roy, Wife of Late Bhupati Roy, of 29, Tollygunje Road, Police Station-Tollygunje, Kolkata-700026 RESPONDENTS : 1. Life Insurance Corporation if India having its Office at 22, Chitta Ranjan Avenue, Police Station-Bowbazar, Kolkata-700 072. 2. Utpol Bagchi, son of late Nirmol Bagchi, 56 N, Dakshin Behala Road, Police Station-Thakupukur, Kolkata-700 061. BEFORE HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Debasis Bhattacharya. HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Jagannath Bag. FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. Tapon Chatterjee, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT : Ms. Sumita Roychowdhury. , Ld. Advocate. Sri Jagannath Bag , Member
The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 11.01.2013 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-II, Kolkata, whereby, the complaint was dismissed on contest against the OPs, but without cost.
The complaint case, in brief, was as follows :
The Complainant purchased one insurance policy bearing no. S/410454724TT75/20 .The OP No.2 took loan amount of Rs.70,000/- against such policy together with the policy no. 5/4102221527714/2 for Rs.20,000/- and made endorsement of such assignee on those policy bonds. The OP No.2 took the loan on 26.09.1994 with an assurance to repay the loan. The Petitioner is not the original policy holder for making record to the OP Insurance Company and necessary recording was made by the office of the OP Insurance Company. Subsequently, the Petitioner claimed the maturity sum as on 14.03.2011. The OP Insurance Company paid first two instalments of Rs.20,000/- to the Petitioner as assigned. But, the third and fourth instalments were not paid by the Insurance Company in spite of issue of Advocates notice. The OP Insurance Company did not pay any heed to the claim of the Complainant. Citing deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, a complaint case was filed before the Ld. Forum below.
The complaint was contested by the OP Insurance Company by filing of W.V. wherein all allegations were denied and it was contented that the complaint case was not maintainable since the said policy is a Money Back Policy and the premium against the said policy was paid lastly up to February, 2002, and thereafter no premium was paid for which the policy was under reduced paid-up condition. Further, it was submitted by the OPs that they were ready to pay up reduced paid-up value along with bonus amounting to Rs.40,683/-. There was no deficiency in service on their part and as such, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Ld. Forum below after having perused the materials on record and after having heard the Ld. Advocates appearing for the Complainant and the OPs, observed that the Complainant did not pay due premium for which the policy became lapsed. The assignee failed to make payment of balance premium. It was held by the Ld. Forum below that the case was not maintainable as OP No.2 took accommodation loan from the Complainant by assigning the insurance policy contract of personal service in the form of accommodation loan which does not come within the purview of the consumer as defined under Section 2 (1) (e), read with Section 2 (1) (o) of C.P. Act, 1986. The case, being not maintainable, was dismissed on contest against the OPs without any cost.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Ld. Forum below, the Appellant has come up before this Commission with a prayer for direction to set aside the impugned order and to allow the relief as prayed for in the original complaint petition.
We have gone through the Memo. of Appeal together with the copy of the impugned order dated 11.01.2013, copy of the petition of complaint filed before the Ld. Forum below, copy of written statement filed by the OP No.1 before Ld. Forum below along with other documents including the copy of Discharge Voucher (unsigned) and other related documents.
BNA has been filed by the Respondent No.1, i.e., Life Insurance Corporation of India.
Ld. Advocates appearing for the Appellant/Complainant and the Respondents were heard.
Ld. Advocates for the Appellant submitted that the Complainant was a consumer in so far as for service of loan against consideration, insurance policy was assigned in her favour, and it would not be correct to hold that she is not a consumer. Referring to order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA/369/2012, it has been held that the assignee in respect of the policy becomes eligible for all rights associated with the policy as soon as the assignment is made by the assignor and endorsed by the Insurance Company. In the present case, the policy in question appears to have been endorsed by the Insurance Company and as a beneficiary, she has been treated at par with the original policy holder. Accordingly, the present Assignee/Appellant is eligible for being treated as consumer. Ld. Forum below adjudicated the matter and dismissed the complaint, which needs to be reversed by appropriate order of this Commission.
Ld. Advocate appearing for the Respondent / Insurance Company submitted that there was a transaction of loan against the insurance policy. The said transaction is personal and commercial in nature. Decision of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as cited by the Appellant will not be applicable, since in the present case the Complainant is not a consumer. Further, the policy lapsed in 2002 and the paid-up value was reduced. No payment after second premium was reported to have been made. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Decision with reasons.
We have gone through the L.C.R. and perused the records relating to the case in hand.
It appears that,as observed by the Ld. Forum below, the policy is a Money Back Policy and the premium against the said policy was last paid in February, 2002, and thereafter no premium being paid, the said policy was under reduced paid-up condition. Thus, the responsibility of the Complainant/Appellant to pay the premium after March, 2002, which she failed can not be ignored. The policy is found to have been lapsed. Neither the original policy holder nor the Assignee having paid premiums due, cannot claim any benefit out of the policy in question. The alleged negligence on the part of the service provider does not appear to have been proved. Accordingly, we are of considered view that the Complainant/Appellant is not entitled for the benefits associated with the policy.
Hence, ORDERED that the appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest. The impugned order is confirmed. There shall be no order as to cost.
LCR be returned to the office of the Ld. Forum below along with a copy of this order.
Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER MEMBER