1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that the Ops through their Agents approached the complainant and requested to obtain a policy namely ‘Century Plus’ floated by the Ops.  They made the complainant belief that this is a new policy and a single deposit will grow and fetch a good return to the complainant after 5 years and in support of their contentions, the agent of the Ops also gave leaflets and handouts showing features of the policy.  Believing the promises of the agents of the Ops, the complainant proposed for a Century Plus policy and gave Rs.25, 000/- along with required documents to the Ops on 17.12.2007 and the Ops issued policy bond vide No.0079759033 dt.10.1.2008.  It is submitted that on going through the policy documents, the complainant could know that the policy obtained by him is for 10 years and he is to deposit Rs.25, 000/- in every year and hence the complainant contacted the Ops as well as agent for return of the policy but they reiterated their assurances and requested the complainant to remain with the policy which will give a good return after 5 years.  It is also further submitted that the complainant all of a sudden received a cheque bearing No.292648 dt.14.1.2013 of Axis Bank Ltd. for Rs.3430/- from the Ops towards foreclosure value of the policy and when contacted, the OP.1 stated that the Company has foreclosed the policy and hence he cannot do anything at this stage.  Thus alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops, the complainant has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.25, 000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit and to pay Rs.25, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops filed counter in joint denying the allegations but admitted about the policy obtained by the complainant with date of commencement 10.1.2008.  It is contended that nothing wrong was committed by the OP in relation to maturity value of the product and also denied the motivation of agents to the public with higher rate of return since the contracts are entered into by insurer and insured and on the basis of proposal form and the documents submitted by the insured.  Further the insured got the opportunity to scrutinize the policy bond and if anything is found contrary to the agent’s version, he gets the opportunity of free look cancellation within 15 days from getting the policy bond.  It is further submitted that the complainant has received the policy bond and has gone through the terms of the policy but failed to surrender the policy within 15 days if he is not agreed upon with the terms and conditions of the policy and after payment of 1^st premium the complainant remained silent.  It is also further contended that the complainant did not avail the free look period cancellation of the policy and as such he has full consent and agreement with the terms and conditions of the policy.  The Ops also further contended that as the complainant did not deposit any premium after the 1^st premium, the Ops after completion of 5 years as per policy conditions foreclosed the policy and returned the foreclosure value of the policy to the complainant on 14.01.2013 through cheque to which the complainant has received.  With these and other contentions, denying any fault on their part, they prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case the proposal and premium has been received by the OPs and the policy bond was issued in favour of the complainant.  It is the case of the complainant that he gave proposal with single deposit being influenced by the agent of the Ops for a good return and he approached the Ops for cancellation of policy as he was not comfort with the terms of the policy.  He being convinced with the request of the Ops, remained with the policy but after 5 years, the Ops voluntarily foreclosed the policy and a sum of Rs.3430/- was offered to him.

5.                     The Ops stated that the complainant opted insurance policy and after deposit of 1^st premium and required documents the policy was issued for 10 years with annual mode of payment.  They also provided a free look period of 15 days during which the complainant had option either to continue or to apply for closure of the policy.  During said period as no correspondence was received from him, it deemed that the policy would continue.  As the complainant did not pay regular premium, the policy remained lapse and it was foreclosed after 5 years and the value thereof was paid to him and hence the complainant has no right to claim anything more from the Ops.

6.                     The complainant on the other hand submitted that before proposal, the agent and representative of the Ops approached him and stated that Century Plus Scheme is one time deposit and shall give benefits to the complainant minimum after 3 years of the policy.  They also handed over their advertisement copies and another document called ‘Investment Insight’ to the complainant and in their Advertisement page it was clearly mentioned that “Your fund shall continue to grow and would be payable at the end of 5^th policy year, even if you are unable to pay future premium”.  The complainant in support of his submissions also filed the copy of advertisement and other documents issued by the Ops for advertisement of their Company product.  Perused the said advertisement copies available on record and found that the corresponding plan has 98% allocation and average fund performance is more than 50% in a year.  Therefore, the Ops assured 50% growth on deposits every year.  From the face of that advertisement it was ascertained that even one time deposit or one term deposit is enough and the growth rate of the scheme is very high and the same growth rate is applicable to all investors including the present complainant.  But we found the foreclosure value received by the complainant is very negligible in this case.

7.                     The complainant stated that as per advertisement and assurances of the Ops he deposited money with the Ops along with the proposal form but after issuing bond the Ops are blowing hot and cold at the same time.  Now it is to be seen as to which fact the complainant should belief, the advertisement and assurances offered prior to proposal or the letter issued by the Ops after acceptance of proposal.  It is seen that the complainant believing the advertisements and assurance of the Ops has deposited the money.  After receipt of bond, he also contacted the agent for return of the policy and getting full assurances from the agent of the Ops, he has not cared to the contents of that letter issued by the Ops and remained with the policy.  As per contents of said advertisement and assurances of the Ops, it is seen that the fund has not grown at all.  Rather the complainant has sustained loss due to such misleading advertisement and false assurances of the Ops.

8.                     From the above facts and circumstances, it was ascertained that the Ops have given false assurances and also issued misleading advertisements, the copy of which is available on record which in our opinion amounts to serious unfair trade practice for which the complainant sustained loss after remaining full 5 years with the OPs.  This type of advertisement by the Companies is common now a day in order to attract to customers for investment of their hard earned money but the people should refrain from believing those misleading advertisements before falling prey at their hands.  In the above case, the complainant also suffered in the same manner and the Ops should not run their business adopting such unfairness.

9.                     From the above discussions, we come to the conclusion that the Ops through misleading advertisement and giving false assurances have obtained the proposal and issued policy bond but later on under the guise of their so called terms and conditions of the policy, they are sucking blood of the investors unlike the present complainant for no fault of the complainant.  This hidden agenda of the Ops is against the public policy and public good.    In the above circumstances, the complainant is entitled for getting back its deposit in all fairness with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit in the best interest of justice.  Due to above action of the Ops, the  complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has filed this case incurring some expenditure for which, he is entitled for some compensation and costs.  Considering the sufferings we feel a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation and cost in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

10.                   Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops being jointly and severally liable are directed to pay Rs.25, 000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 10.01.2008 till the date of foreclosure i.e. 14.1.2013 minus the foreclosure value already paid to the complainant and to pay Rs.5000/-towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)