Tribunals and Commissions(2001) 07 NCDRC CK 0043

Life Insurance Corporation of India vs Sabita Mukherjee

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 10 July 2001 · Citation: 2002 1 CPC 598 : 2002 1 CPJ 100 : 2002 1 CPR 353

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.C.Datta , S.Majumder , D.Karformas J.
RESULT
Appeal allowed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 466 words
1.

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 31.3.2000 directing the Insurance Company to accept all premia for the policy of the complainant, if tendered at the Boranagar Branch at 46/10, B.T. Road, Baranagar, Calcutta-56.

2.

THE case of the complainant in short is that he had taken a policy named as Jeevan Suraksha Policy on payment of usual premia from the Baranagar Branch, in October, 1997 and since then she has been paying premia in the said Branch. THE Branch Manager of the opposite party through letter dated 21.4.1999 informed her that the policy had been transferred to C.M.D.O. at 16, C.R. Avenue, Calcutta and advised her to deposit premia at that office only henceforth. According to complainant, Baranagar Branch of the opposite party is close to her residence and it is easier to deposit premia and the same will have to be deposited by her for the next 20 years at their Office at Calcutta. Accordingly, she has filed this complaint petition praying for restoration of the earlier arrangement. The case was contested by Insurance Company by filing written statement wherein it has been stated that the sole purpose of the changeover was to give better and effective service to the policy-holders and the changeover in the system is the outcome of a general decision taken by the Insurance Company. The Forum held that the changeover of the arrangement cannot be done unilaterally which would adversely affect the policy-holder. The Forum held that it would amount to deficiency in service. Consequently, the Forum asked the Insurance Company to accept premia from the complainant at its Baranagar Branch.

Being aggrieved thereby the Insurance Company has come in appeal. According to the appellant there was a policy decision for switching over to the present system and the object is to render more efficient service for pension policies like the one which was obtained by the complainant. It has been further stated that the LIC of India has taken a decision to serve the customers in a better way and as such all the pension policies and group schemes under P&GS are to be operated from office located at 16, C.R. Avenue, Calcutta. It is their further case that all Branch Offices are being brought under Metro Area Network and it is in advanced stage of implementation and once the implementation is done the policy-holder would get the facility/ choice of depositing premia against all types of policies including pension policies at any Branch of the L.I.C.I. under Calcutta Metro Area. In view of the situation, it seems that the Forum was not justified in issuing the directions contained in the impugned order which cannot, therefore, be sustained. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal be allowed and the judgment of the Forum is set aside. Appeal allowed.