State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
L I C I vs Anand Kumar Garg on 13 January, 2016
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/2000/480 (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District ) 1. L I C I a ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Anand Kumar Garg a ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Alok Kumar Bose PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Sanjay Kumar MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: ORDER RESERVED State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P., Lucknow. Appeal No.480 of 2000 Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Shanti Bhawan, IInd Floor, Ambala Road, Saharanpur. ....Appellant. Versus Anand Kumar Garg s/o Sri M. L. Garg, R/o L.R. Bros., Venus Cinema Building, Raiwaly Road, Saharanpur. ...Respondent. Present:- 1- Hon'ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member. 2- Hon'ble Sri Sanjay Kumar, Member. Sri Sanjay Jaiswal for the appellant. None for the respondent. Date 17.2.2016 JUDGMENT
Sri A.K. Bose, Member- Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15.1.2000, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Saharanpur in complaint case No.27 of 1996, the appellant Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India has preferred the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in the eye of law. It was delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind on the basis of surmises and conjectures and therefore, it has been prayed that the same be set aside in the interest of justice, otherwise the appellant will suffer irreparable loss.
From perusal of the records, it transpires that the respondent/complainant Sri Anand Kumar Garg submitted two proposal forms on 17.11.1993 for obtaining Life (2) Insurance Policies Asha Deep under Table and Term 110-25 with Accident Benefits for a sum assured Rs.1 lac each and deposited Rs.500.00 on 10.11.1993 and 11.11.1993. He, thereafter, deposited a sum of Rs.8,878.00 on 30.11.1994. He also applied for back date coverage from 28.10.1993 and made his wife Smt. Nira Garg as his nominee.
The proposal forms were sent to the Higher Authorities of the appellant LIC for acceptance alongwith necessary medical reports and documents but were not accepted by the appellant Corporation due to certain existing guidelines. Consequently, the respondent/ complainant was informed about the same and he was requested to obtain policies under Table and Term 14-25.
The respondent/complainant agreed to obtain policies under Table and Term 14-25 and gave his consent in writing which are on record. Consequently, the proposal forms were accepted and policy bonds no.250553911 and 250553912 under Endowment Insurance Policy with Profits (with Accidental Benefits) were issued on 16.5.1994. Photocopies of the policy bonds are on record. The premiums paid by the respondent/ complainant were adjusted in the policies in hand.
From perusal of the complaint, it transpires that the respondent/complainant did not deposit the premiums which fell due from 28.10.1994 onwards and consequently, both policies lapsed after the statutory grace period. There is no dispute that the balance amount of Rs.842.00 after all adjustments refunded to the respondent/complainant in time.
(3)The respondent/complainant was not satisfied with the aforesaid order and filed complaint case no.27 of 1996 before the Ld. DCDRF for payment of Rs.20,000.00 as compensation for issuing policies under Table and Term 14-25 and not under 110-25. He also prayed that the appellant LIC should be directed to issue him Policy Asha Deep as originally proposed by him and not the Endowment Policy with Profits (with Accidental Benefit) under Table and Term 14-25.
The Forum below, after considering all facts, circumstances and evidence on record directed the appellant LIC to pay a sum of Rs.10,018.00 with interest @ 12% from 3.2.1996 till its full and final payment. It also directed the appellant Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.1,100.00 as compensation. Aggrieved by this judgment and order, the instant appeal was preferred on 19.2.2000.
The respondent/complainant was issued numerous notices by means of Registered AD (receipts of which are on record) but he failed to put in his appearance, therefore, in view of the provisions contained under Rule 8(6) of the U.P. Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 30(2) of the Act 68 of 1986, it was deemed fit on 13.1.2016 that exparte proceedings be initiated. Consequently, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant Corporation was heard exparte.
We have gone through the records very carefully. There is no denial of the fact that the respondent/complainant applied for two Life Insurance Policies: Asha Deep under Table and Term 110-25 on (4) 17.11.1993 for a sum assured Rs.1 lac each. The proposals were not accepted by the Corporation due to certain guide-lines and accordingly, he was requested to apply for Endowment Policy under Table and Term 14-25. Till this period, there was no relationship of Consumer and Service-Provider between the parties. The respondent/complainant gave his consent in writing on 26.2.1994 for the same and accordingly, Policy Bonds, bearing no.250553911 and 250553912 were issued on 16.5.1994 and the amount deposited by the respondent/ complainant were adjusted in these policies. Thus, we find no remiss or misfeasance in public office on the part of the appellant Corporation. The policy stood lapsed after the statutory grace period for non payment of the premiums due on 28.10.1994 and, therefore, the balance of Rs.842.00 paid in excess earlier was refunded to him. The entire amount of premium paid by the respondent/ complainant could not be refunded to him due to settled principles of law on the subject. There was no remiss in this regard in view of the ruling laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in Life Insurance Corpn. of India & Ors. vs. Siba Prasad Dash (Dr.) & Ors., IV (2008) CPJ 156 (NC). The Forum below failed to take all facts, circumstances and evidence on records into consideration before passing the impugned order. It is neither in accordance with law nor is based on evidence on record. The judgment suffers from material irregularity or illegality and, therefore, cannot be allowed to sustain. Consequently, the appeal deserved to be allowed.
(5)ORDER The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 15.1.2000, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Saharanpur in complaint case No.27 of 1996 is set aside. No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.
(A.K. Bose) (Sanjai Kumar) Presiding Member Member Jafri PA II Court No.3 [HON'BLE MR. Alok Kumar Bose] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Sanjay Kumar] MEMBER