Hadubandhu Nayak vs Manager, LIC Of India, BBSR And Others

Arindam Sinha, J

The writ petition was moved on 20th May, 2022. On behalf of petitioner it was submitted, orders dated 5th May, 2018 and 13th September, 2021 passed respectively by the Consumer District Forum and the State Commission had been impugned.

It was submitted on behalf of petitioner that he had taken a policy requiring monthly premium payment at Rs.27.71. Maturity value of the policy on 9th December, 1996 was Rs.10,000/-. During subsistence of the policy, petitioner suffered vigilance proceeding against him. Inter alia, the policy document was seized and petitioner suspended from service. Premium was to be paid by the employer. On consequent suspension, the employer did not pay. Petitioner’s policy document having had been seized, he was unaware of the maturity date. Arrears of premium was paid after maturity of the policy, lastly in April, 1998.

Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client was acquitted in the vigilance case in year 2011. On obtaining return of the policy, his client presented to it to the insurance company. The insurance company only paid Rs.18,039/- and Rs.364/- as penal interest. He submits, his client was entitled to more. The Forum and the Commission acted with illegality and material irregularity in denying relief to his client.

Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of the insurance company and submits, procedure required the policy holder to produce the policy and execute discharge certificate to obtain maturity value on the policy. Petitioner presented the policy and executed the discharge, 16 years after maturity of the policy. Sum assured Rs.10,000/- and bonus along with penal interest for 66 days delay in payment, upon due presentation, were disbursed to petitioner. His client did not commit breach of any term in the policy.

He submits further, petitioner had availed remedy as a consumer. The original and appellate authorities rejected petitioner’s claim. Petitioner has statutory remedy of appeal before the National Commission. Perusal of impugned order would also show they were upon hearing given to petitioner and carries reasons. There should not be interference.

Court accepts petitioner’s submissions on facts being, petitioner was prevented from paying the premium as well as producing the policy and executing discharge for purpose of obtaining maturity value on the policy. This resulted in petitioner’s money lying with the insurance company, for all of 16 years after the policy matured. Petitioner is justified in being aggrieved but the wrong, he perceives as done to him, was not committed by the insurance company.

Perused impugned orders. Court is unable to find apparent illegality therein. In the circumstances, no order can be made on the writ petition.

It is disposed of.

..................................................