Appeal No. 2 of 2015. Case: LIC of India Vs Gopal Singh. Pondicherry State Consumer Forum SCDRC Cases
|Parts:||LIC of India Vs Gopal Singh|
|Issuing Organization:||Pondicherry State Consumer Forum SCDRC Cases|
|Resolution Date:||September 15, 2015|
|Case:||Appeal No. 2 of 2015|
|Ley aplicable:||Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12|
|Citation:||IV (2015) CPJ 51|
|Judges:||Asim Kumar Ray, J. (President) and Biji Thomas, Member|
Asim Kumar Ray, J. (President)
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed in Consumer Dispute No. 5 of 2013 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Port Blair (District Forum) on 31.12.2014, whereby the complaint was allowed directing the appellant - opposite party to pay back the entire amount of premium to the tune of Rs. 2,20,500 with interest Rs. 6% per annum and a cost of Rs. 10,000 within 60 days from the date of the order. Factual matrix is that, in December, 2009 one Shri. Depankar Biswas, Development Officer of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Port Blair (LIC) contacted Shri Gopal Singh, respondent-complainant and persuaded him to do an LIC Policy and handed over a copy of chart of "Jeevan Saral Policy". The mode of payments and sum assured of maturity were reflected in that copy. Development Officer convinced the respondent that on making quarterly payment of Rs. 18,375 for 10 years he would get Rs. 12,77,424 as sum assured. On such representation, the respondent agreed to take the said policy and also paid the amount of the first premium.
Two months later on receipt of the Policy Bond the respondent found that the amount of sum assured was shown therein as Rs. 3,90,480 instead of Rs. 12,77,424. He immediately informed the matter to the Development Officer who assured him of making necessary rectification. After waiting for a considerable period without having the said sum rectified in the Policy Bond, he sent a letter to the appellant on 19.10.2012 with a request to issue a fresh Bond showing actual maturity sum of Rs. 12,77,424 which was shown in the Chart. But finally, he was told that the sum assured Rs. 3,90,480 as shown in the Policy Bond was correct and therefore, no rectification was required to be made therein. On 18.12.2012 he issued a notice through his lawyer to the appellant requesting him either to rectify the sum assured in the policy bond or return the amount of premium deposited by him so far with interest. His request was turned down. He felt cheated by the acts of the appellant and ultimately filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection, Act 1986 before the District Forum.
The appellant - opposite party contested the case by filing a written objection denying and disputing the material averment set forth in the body of the complaint and contended, inter alia, that the amount of premium paid by the respondent-complainant could not be returned with interest as per the terms and conditions of the LIC Policy as the said prayer was not made within 15 days from the date of receipt of the Policy Bond. It was contended further that the petition of complaint does not lie under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the appellant- opposite party as the Respondent-Complainant is not a consumer.
Both parties adduced evidence. In course of hearing, the documents were filed by the respondent-complainant which was marked as documentary evidence. The District Forum after considering the evidence on record passed the impugned order.
We have heard Mr. Alokesh Sarkar, learned Counsel of the appellant and Mr. D. Illango, learned Counsel of the respondent.
Mr. Sarkar has contended that the matter suffers from non-joinder of the party as the Development Officer has not been made party. The District Forum has not taken care of this issue at the time of the disposal of the complaint....
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR FREE TRIAL