AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 23.8.2005 passed by Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Forum, Dhanbad.
There are four complainants of the same family, who jointly lodged a complaint before the District Forum, Dhanbad alleging that the OP/LIC did not pay the bonus amount of Rs.6250/- against their four policies each on the date of maturity in the year 2001. The OP resisted the said complaint by filing written version and contended that all four policies were taken by the complainants in 1985, which were continued only for a period of four years. All the four policies acquired for paid up value for reduced sum assured, which was paid in the year 2001 on maturity without bonus. The complainants received the amount as full and final settlement in the year 2001 without any protest.
The District Forum, Dhanbad allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to pay bonus for all the years on the policies in question and also awarded Rs.5,000/- as compensation.
Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the OP filed first appeal before the State Commission, Jharkhand. The State Commission allowed the appeal by setting aside the order passed by the District Forum. Hence, the complainant filed this revision petition.
The authorized representative of petitioner/complainant, Mr. .P. K. Dalmia was present. He has filed short synopsis of written arguments. On behalf of OP, learned counsel Mr. Pankul Nagpal argued the matter. Learned counsel for the OP brought our attention to the LIC circular dated 31.08.2001 about governing allocation of bonus. Under clause 4 of the "Vesting of Bonus", it is stated as under:-
"Bonus declared on the policies will vest in such policies provided they have been in force for the full sum assured for a period of five years from the date of commencement. The above condition shall not apply to the policies, whereby reason of death occurring at any time within the said period of five years, claims are payable for the full sum assured."
The complainant argued that the condition mentioned in the policy i. e. condition No. 4 about "Non-Forfeiture Regulation", is applicable in this case. Condition No. 4 is reproduced as below:-
"Non forfeiture Regulations : If, after at least three full years premiums have been paid in respect of this policy any subsequent premium be not duly paid, this polich shall not be wholly void, but shall subsist as a paid-up policy for a reduced sum payable on the Date of Maturity or at the Life Assure''s prior death provided the paid up sum assured is not less than Rs. 250. The amount of paid-up assurance for integral number of years'' premiums paid will be calculated as per Table given below. The policy so reduced shall thereafter be free from all liability for payment of within-mentioned premium, but shall not be entitled to participate in future profits. The existing bonus additions, if any, will remain attached to the reduced paid-up policy.
The complainant further argued that the circular dated 31.8.2001 of LIC is not applicable retrospectively as the policies were issued long back in the year 1986. Therefore, the LIC failed to honour condition No. 4 to refund the premium alongwith bonus accrued. Regarding full and final settlement and no protest, the authorised representative submitted that in that context, protest was made through communication letter with LIC at Dhanbad, Calcutta, New Delhi, Mumbai.
After our thoughtful consideration, admittedly, all the four policies were issued in the year 1986 under the same plan and terms. The terms and conditions of all policies were also the same. All the four policies acquired Paid up Value for reduced sum assured due to non-payment of the premium after four years. Therefore, OP had paid the amount to all the complainants without bonus as per the terms and conditions of the policy.
As per the complaint, the complainant has calculated bonus for four years at the rate of Rs.250/- per Rs.1000/- sum assured, therefore, according to him he was entitled for bonus of Rs.6,250/- under each policy. The complainant has not explained how he arrived with the figure of Rs.6,250/-. In this context we have perused the circular dated 31.8.2001 filed by the OP. The circular was issued in the year 2001, in our view, the circular has no retrospective effect because the policies were taken 15 years before. As per the said circular the money back policy for 12 and 15 years terms, there was no change in the rate of bonus. Under clause 3, Bonus Rates, it is clearly mentioned that the Money back policy (term of 12 and 15 years) issued on and after 1.4.1980 is eligible for the bonus @ Rs. 53/- per thousand sum assured. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for bonus of Rs. 53 X 25 = Rs. 1325/- per year. Therefore, for four years, it will be Rs.5300/-. In the instant case, there are four policies, the policies got matured on 25.10.2001, 18.12.2001, 15.12.2001 and 18.12.2001, therefore, the total bonus applicable will be Rs.21,200/-. It is pertinent to note that the complainant made several protests through his letters to LIC branches at Dhanbad, Kolkata, New Delhi and Mumbai regarding not paying the bonus.
On the basis of foregoing discussion, it is clear that OP failed to pay the bonus amount for the four years to the complainant.
Therefore, we set aside the orders passed by both the fora below and direct the OP to pay total bonus amount of Rs.21,200/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of maturity. OP shall comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum till its realisation. There shall be no order as to costs.