Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member
This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 04.02.2008 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission) in FA No. 1428/2007, œThe Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as LIC) versus Nagaraj T.V.? vide which while allowing the appeal, the order dated 06.06.2007 in consumer complaint no. 22/2007, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandya, allowing the said complaint, was set aside, and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant obtained Jeevan Dhara Policy, bearing no. 623015283 for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- from the LIC, with date of maturity as 19.10.2006. The complainant contended that he was entitled to Rs.4,800/- as monthly instalment of annuity from the date of maturity, whereas the OP was paying him a monthly instalment of Rs.1200/- only. He also contended that in addition to the sum assured under the policy, he is entitled to receive 1% of the enhanced amount and also entitled for the bonus declared by the LIC / OP. Despite taking up the matter with the zonal office of the OP and the Insurance Ombudsman, he failed to get proper relief. The LIC took the stand that as per the circular/instructions issued by them, the complainant was entitled to receive 1% of the Gross Insurance Value Element (GIVE) and, therefore, the monthly instalment of Annuity was fixed at Rs.1200/-. The OP contended that they had already paid Rs.3600/- as one-time payment under the policy, in view of the instructions contained in the circular. They further contended that the LIC had not declared any Bonus under the Jeevan Dhara Policy and hence, the complainant was not entitled to any bonus under the said policy. The complainant, on the other hand, took the plea that GIVE amount was enhanced by Rs.2,496/- as per the terms and conditions of the policy with deferred participation in profit. The petitioner was eligible for bonus at two stages “ the first stage at the end of the deferred period as addition to the GIVE amount and proportionately increasing the annuity, and the second stage as addition to GIVE amount, payable on death. The District Forum vide their order dated 06.06.2007, allowed the complaint and directed the LIC to add bonus as admissible to any other annuity policy for 15 years, to the GIVE amount and to enhance the annuity at 1% of the enhanced GIVE amount and also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation cost. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the LIC preferred an appeal before the State Commission, which was allowed as per the impugned order and the order of the District Forum was set aside and the consumer complaint was dismissed. The State Commission upheld the version of the LIC that no bonus had been declared under the Jeevan Dhara policy issued in favour of the complainant and hence, the OP was not bound to pay bonus to the complainant. It is against this order that the present petition has come up.
3. The petitioner put in personal appearance during some hearings before the Commission, but after hearing on 06.02.2013, he absented himself on subsequent dates, i.e., 13.08.2013, 23.09.2013, 16.12.2013, 25.02.2014 and 13.03.2014. A notice was sent to him in the interest of justice but despite the service of the notice, neither the petitioner, nor his counsel appeared. The arguments of both the parties had been heard on 06.02.2013 and the arguments were again heard from the respondent on 13.03.2014.
4. During arguments on 06.02.2013, the petitioner stated in person that under the terms and conditions of the policy, the LIC was supposed to declare bonus as guaranteed maturity addition. The LIC was paying him Rs.1200/- per month, whereas they were supposed to pay Rs.1248/- per month. On 06.12.2013, the respondent LIC was directed to explain, on what basis Rs.3600/- had been given to the petitioner and place copies of the factor and further appraise whether respondent had made endorsement of Rs.1,24,800/- on the top of the policy, as was reflected in the copies of the documents. On 13.03.2014, the learned counsel for the LIC categorically stated that the endorsement of Rs.1,20,000/- + Rs.4800 = Rs.1,24,800/- as reflected on the copy of the policy had not been made by them. In fact, the LIC had not declared any bonus under the Jeevan Dhara policy, although they had declared bonus under other schemes including new Jeevan Dhara “ I plan. They were, therefore, justified in not giving the additional amount to the petitioner as demanded by him. The learned counsel has drawn our attention to the order passed by the State Commission, saying that the State Commission vide impugned order, had made a correct appreciation of the facts on record and accepted the version of the respondent that they had not declared bonus under the Jeevan Dhara Policy and hence, the District Forum was not justified to direct that additional amount should be paid to the complainant.
5. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. In so far as endorsement of Rs.1,24,800/- on the copy of the policy produced on record is concerned, LIC has denied that any endorsement was made by them to this effect on the policy. From the material on record, it is not proved anywhere that there was an addition of Rs.4,800/- to the policy amount of Rs.1,20,000/- making it a total of Rs.1,24,800/-. Further, the learned counsel for the LIC produced a document dated 20.12.2006 at the time of arguments, which says that the valuation of the corporation business as on 31.03.2006 had been completed and the bonus declared in different policies had been mentioned in that document. Under the Jeevan Dhara Policy, no bonus had been declared. It has been admitted by the LIC that a one-time payment of Rs.3600/- as Guaranteed Maturity Addition (GMA) had been paid to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts stated above, there does not seem to be any merit in this revision petition which may require interference in the well-reasoned orders passed by the State Commission. It is held, therefore, that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, irregularity or jurisdictional error and the same is confirmed. This revision petition is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.