May 05, 2019 09:11 AM
2709 Views
(Updated May 05, 2019 07:09 PM)
NOT INFORMING THE REASONS BEHIND NON-DEDUCTIONS OF PREMIUMS
The monthly premiums of the policies(494621035 and 494620562) were paid through an auto-debit system or ECS according to my mandate given to LICI from my bank.
However, it is found that from September 2018, there has been no transaction following my mandate from my bank.
After inquiring into the matter, LIC said that our joint bank account(with my spouse) was not operative. I had troubled myself for showing empirically that our savings account was live and there was nothing wrong in it.
After re-inquiring into the matter and after much hassles and hazards, it has come to our knowledge, (as told by a person from the LICI customer care in course of answering my queries) that something called “NACH” was operating here. The acronym NACH is a neologism for me. None of the representatives of the LICI intimated/informed me in black and white or transmitted me orally earlier/before my investigation regarding the rules and regulations of National Automated Clearing House(NACH).
Thus, my ‘Right to be informed’ is infringed. Kindly note the following right of the consumer:
“The right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods or services, as the case may be so as to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices.”(CHAPTER II, B, THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986)
That means the consumer should insist on getting all the information about the products or services before making any choice or decision. This will enable him/her to act accordingly and also enable him/her to desist from falling prey to misinformation and non-information.
Thus, LICI willfully(!?) concealed the fact and concealment of a material fact is a crime(Section 107 IPC).
The above-mentioned policies are now enjoying the statuses of "reduced paid-up". Now LIC is claiming late fees with penalties for the revival of those policies.
I am reluctant to pay penalty for the crime, non-deduction of premiums, which has not been committed by us.
Now I, keeping in mind the RTI act 2005, wish to put the following questions to the concerned authority:
(a) Why did not LICI inform us?
(b) Whose duty was to inform?
(c) Whose responsibility was to inform?
(d) Is it not the obligation of the public authority or seller?
(e) Is it not a crime not to inform the consumer?
(f) What would be the future actions of LICI regarding death benefits related to these policies, if we died or die within this period of non-deduction of premiums?
