R. MANIMARAN Vs. CHAIRMAN, LIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed under sec. 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dtd. 8/12/2011 of the State Commission in appeal no. 93 of 2010 arising out of the Order dtd. 21/8/2008 of the District Commission in complaint no. 84 of 2006.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the complainant (the petitioner herein) and for the financial institution (the respondents no.2 and no. 3 herein).

(3.) Brief facts, as evincing from the appraisals made by the two fora below, are that the complainant was a borrower in house building loan account no. 240005834 (the loan was taken in 1997). He had taken 03 insurance policies, for Rs.50,000.00, Rs.1,00,000.00 and Rs.1,00,000.00, which had been assigned to the financial institution. His wife was a borrower in a separate house building loan account no. 240007177, in which he i.e. the complainant was the guarantor (this loan was taken in 1998). His wife had taken separate insurance policies in her own name and assigned the same to the financial institution. On 28/7/2005 he gave written instructions to surrender the policies and to credit their surrender values into his loan account no. 240005834. The surrender value of the first policy amounting to Rs.30,841.00 was received by the financial institution on 22/10/2005, and credited into his loan account. The surrender value of the second policy amounting to Rs.38,524.00 was received on 15/11/2005, and also credited into his loan account. The surrender value of the third policy amounting to Rs.92,316.00 was received on 30/11/2005, but was credited into the loan account no. 240007177 of his wife which was contrary to his instructions. The District Commission found this to be deficiency in service and directed the financial institution to adjust the said surrender value of Rs.92,316.00 of the third policy towards the loan account no. 240005834 of the complainant as on 30/11/2005 i.e. as on the date on which the amount was received by the financial institution and to credit the excess if any into the loan account no. 240007177 of the wife as on 30/11/2005. The State Commission however found nothing wrong with the financial institution adjusting the surrender value of the third policy in his wife's account and dismissed the complaint.