Narendra Vishvanath Vyas vs Chairman Life Insurance Corpn. Of India Yogakshema

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 1.4.2008 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 49 of 2008 - The Chairman, LIC of India Vs. Narendra Vishvanath Vyas by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner obtained Jeevan Dhara Policy on 23.10.1990 from OP/respondent for GIVE amount of Rs.1,19,660/ - with a deferment period of 15 years. It was further alleged that benefits of the policy included (i) an annuity payment of Rs.3,506.50 (ii) Bonus in two stages ''''firstly, at the end of deferment period as addition to the GIVE proportionately increasing the annuity; and secondly, as addition to the GIVE payable on death. These bonuses will be at the rates declared by the Corporation at the valuation immediately preceding the relevant date and will be subject to such condition or restrictions as specified in such declaration, '''' and (iii) an additional increase in the GIVE amount on the vesting date by Rs.3,590/ - subject to the policy being kept in full force by payment of all premiums, which would result in an increase in the annuity as per the terms endorsed in the policy. It was further submitted that OP started paying annuity of Rs.1,233/ - per month consisting of Rs.1000.20 as per policy plus increase in annuity by Rs.232.50. Complainant was also entitled to bonus at the end of deferment period, but OP did not give bonus in the first stage at the end of deferment period in 2005 in addition to GIVE. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that as no bonus was declared, bonus was not payable and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to give bonus at the first stage by adding the bonus amount to the GIVE amount w.e.f. 28.3.2005 with 9% p.a. interest and further allowed Rs.20,000/ - as compensation and Rs.5,000/ - as cost of the complaint. OP filed appeal and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed appeal and dismissed complaint against which, this revision petition has been filed.

HEARD the petitioner in person and learned Counsel for the respondent and perused record. Petitioner submitted that inspite of huge profit, no bonus has been declared by respondent and as per terms of the policy, petitioner was entitled to bonus and learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint, but learned State Commission committed error in dismissing complaint; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

OP in the written statement specifically pleaded that no bonus has been declared to Jeevan Dhara Policy holders after 1998. Complainant submitted that on account of huge profits, OP was bound to declare bonus. I do not agree with the submission of the petitioner, as declaration of bonus is prerogative of the Company and Company may refuse to declare the bonus inspite of huge profits. Petitioner being holder of Jeevan Dhara Policy cannot call upon the respondent to declare bonus on this policy. Learned State Commission rightly observed that bonus is a matter of discretion and cannot be demanded as a matter of right. Had bonus been declared on Jeevan Dhara Policy and given to other policy holders and not given to petitioner, certainly there would have been deficiency on the part of respondent, but in the case in hand, as no bonus has been declared by respondent, petitioner was not entitled to any relief in the complaint.

LEARNED Counsel for the respondent submitted that annuity amount has already been increased and GIVE amount has also been increased and on our direction respondent has filed affidavit of Mr. Prem Chandra, Assistant Secretary (Legal) in which increase of annuity and GIVE amount has been explained, which runs as under: ''''3. That in compliance of the said order, with regard to the increase in annuity of Rs.233/ -, it is submitted that as per circular Ref: Act1/1444 dated 27.7.1989, for annual premium policies Guaranteed Maturity Addition (GMA) will be granted @ 0.2% of the GIVE (Gross Insurance Value Element) amount for each year of deferment subject to maximum 4% of the GIVE amount. This GMA will be in addition to a bonus that may be declared at vesting and should be taken into account while calculating the amount of annuity payable. That as per circular Ref: Act1/1481 dated 17.5.1991, increase in annuity is allowed to the existing Jeevan Dhara policyholder, the revised annuity payment will be @ 1% per month of the GIVE amount, obtained by adding the ''''Guaranteed additions (or bonuses), if any, to original GIVE amount. Original GIVE amount = Rs.119660/ - Increased GIVE amount = (0.2/100)*15*119660 = Rs.3590/ -. Annuity per month = 1% of (119660+3590 i.e. 123250) = Rs.1233/ - per month. Thus there was an increased annuity of Rs.1,233/ - instead of agreed annuity of Rs.1,000.20 and thus there was an increase of Rs.233/ - in monthly annuity.

That during the period 1991 to 1998 Final (Additional) Bonuses were declared under Jeevan Dhara Plan (T 96) which unlike reversionary bonuses do not get attached with the policy and are applicable to only those in force policies which vest or exit in the calendar year immediately following the year in which results of valuations are declared. For example, under Jeevan Dhara (T 96) final additional bonus declared as a result of valuation as at 31.03.1994 would have been paid for policies in force as at 31.03.1994 and which would have vested or exited due to death during the period 01.01.1995 to 31.12.1995. That no reversionary bonuses have been declared under the said plan.Further as no Final (Additional) Bonuses have been declared as a result of valuation from the year 1999 onwards, no bonus addition is payable under this policy and accordingly no bonus addition has been made on this count ''''.

THUS , it becomes clear that respondent has granted relief to the petitioner in the Jeevan Dhara Policy for which, he was entitled and respondent has not committed any deficiency in refusing to declare bonus on this policy and learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENT LY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.