LAWS(NCD)-2015-6-45

BRAJA KISHORE SAHOO Vs. LIC OF INDIA

Decided On June 24, 2015
BRAJA KISHORE SAHOO Appellant
V/S
LIC OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 28.1.2008 passed by the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (in short, 'the State Commission') in C.D. Appeal No. 1380 of 2003 Braja Kishore SahooVs. Sr. Branch Manager, LIC of India by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Petitioner/Complainant obtained insurance policy from OP/respondent for a period of 20 years in 1981with half yearly premium of Rs.93/- and last premium was payable in June, 2001. Complainant pledged policy with Vijaya Bank against a loan taken by complainant and assignment was made in favour of bank to collect policy amount. Complainant paid premium till June, 2001 and in August, 2001, enquired from OP about maturity value and he was told that he would get a letter after December, 2001. From February, 2002 to 8.5.2002 he enquired from OP many times, but was assured to get reply shortly. OP by letter dated 15.5.2002 intimated to the complainant that out of maturity amount of Rs. 20,160/-, a sum of Rs.12,462/- has been deducted on different heads and sum of Rs.7,698/- has been given to the banker. OP has made illegal deduction. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complaint is not maintainable as due discharge has been made by assignee bank. It was further submitted that complainant was to pay enhanced premium of Rs.320.50 from 28.12.1986 till 28.12.2001 which has been deducted along with interest. It has also been mentioned that as per terms and conditions of policy, complainant did not make written request to OP for conversion of policy and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by complainant was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.