West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/400/2015

1. Mrs. Chandana Das ( Policy Holder) - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. M/S. Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Managing Director. - Opp.Party(s)

Dr. Sabyasachi Basu.

09 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027

 

C.C. CASE NO. ___400   OF ___2015____

 

DATE OF FILING : 8.9.2015     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:                      9.8.16

 

Present                         :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :  Smt.  Sharmi Basu                                  

 

COMPLAINANT                   :  1. Mrs. Chandana Das ,w/o Mrinal Kanti Das of 46, Subhayan Park, Biren Roy Road (West), Kolkata – 61.

                                                 2.  Mrinal Kanti Das,s/o Radhika Mohan Das of 46, Subhayan Park, Biren Roy Road (West), Kolkata – 61.

 

-VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                                :  M/s Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. represented by its Managing Director, Block-H, 1^st Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400710

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

            Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member

            The petition of complaint made under section 12 of the C.P Act ,1986 has been filed by the complainants against the O.Ps on the ground that complainant-1 was inducted into an insurance policy called “Money Multiplier Plan” by one Mr. Sumit Banerjee  an official of the company named M.s Reliance Life Insurance Company ltd. Complainant-2 is the nominee of the policy. The value of the insurance policy was Rs.46000/- and the policy was one time investment whose value will be Rs.4,60,000/-. Complainants received the policy through post on 8.7.2014 and surprised to see the policy that they have to continue payment of Rs.46000/- on yearly basis for 10 years instead of one year. Complainant immediately contacted the Mr. Sumit Banerjee but it yielded no result. Compliant also sent e-mail to the company urging them to discontinue the policy with him on 12.7.2014 as the time frame of 15 days was running out. A legal notice was also sent by the complainants though Ld. Advocate on 7.11.2014 which too went unanswered. The complainants submits that the O.P is avoiding the cancellation of the policy . Hence, this case praying for direction upon the O.P to accept the submission of the policy, to refund Rs.46000/- , compensation of Rs.24000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/- etc.

            The O.P did not contest the case inspite of serving notice upon the, for which the case proceeded in exparte against it.

Points for Decision

1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer or not.
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not.
3. Whether the complainant is eligible to get relief as prayed for partly or fully.

 

Decision with reasons

 

            All the points are taken together  for the sake of convenience as they are interlinked.

            Before going into the merits of the case it is needed to be mentioned here that even after valid service o f notice upon the sole O.P none appears to move the case and hence the case has been proceeded in exparte against the O.P and all the documents brought before this Forum by the complainant and the complaint filed on affidavit and the evidence on affidavit being unchallenged testimony are considered as true.

 

            From the record it appears that complainant-1has taken an Insurance Policy namely Money Multiplier Plan  by one Mr. Sumit Banerjee, the official of the company. In the instant case complainant-2 is the nominee of the complainant no.1. As per submission of the complainants both of them are not enough educated to understand the terms and conditions of the policy in question and the aforesaid official namely Sumit Banerjee convinced them that the premium of the policy was Rs.46000/- and they have to invest one time premium amount and the matured value was Rs.4,60,000/- . But on the contrary from the Policy it reveals that yearly premium is Rs.46000/- for 10 years instead of one year. It is also contended by the complainants that complainant-2 on behalf of the complainant-1 sent an e-mail to the O.P urging the O.P to discontinue the policy on 12.7.2014 which is within the time frame of 15 days and receiving the e-mail O.P asked to submit the original policy but as the complainant is a lay man and had no knowledge about the location of the office of the O.P company, complainants tried time and again to contact Mr. Sumit Banerjee , the official of the company, but no response came from his end and at last after toils of effort on the part of the complainants they came to know about the location of the original office and they submitted the information on 6.8.2014.

 

            In this regard, we are of the opinion that we find no reason to disbelieve the contention of the complainant that being convinced by an official of the insurer/O.P), complainant-1 /intending purchaser signed the policy paper with a notation that complainant has to pay one time premium. Nowadays it is the common practice of some of the Insurance Company to deploy agents or officials to convince and allure the common people, who are ordinary prudent person ,about the huge benefit of insurance policy which is not matter of fact and being convinced by this agent or common people being a very ordinary prudent persons and having no vivid knowledge about the insurance policy purchased the policy. In this case complainants also faced same type of unscrupulous practice of the O.P through the official of the insurer.  It is also fact that as per section 6 of the C.P Act 1986

 

 

 

 

consumer should be informed vividly about  the service by the service provider and the insurer/O.P being a service provider was duty bound to explain rightfully and elaborately to the complainant before issuance of the policy. But the O.P in the instant case has neither performed the aforesaid duty and on the contrary O.P through their official allured the complainant giving wrong conception. This type of activity of the O.P amounts to not only deficiency of rendering services but also unfair trade practice in view of section 2(1)(g) and 2(1) of the C.P Act, 1986.

            It is also observed by this Forum that in the instant case complainants informed their unwillingness to continue the policy in question on 12.7.2014 where the date of policy received by the complainant is 8.7.2014 which is very much within the stipulated period of “Free Look Period” of 15 days.

            Therefore, in light of the above discussion, we have no hesitation to hold that the O.P/Insurer is liable for deficiency in service and also for unfair trade practice towards the complainant .

            It is also needed to be mentioned here that as the complainant-1 is the policy holder , all the directions upon the O.P should be given in favour of the complainant-1 and the O.P is liable to refund the amount of the premium and also to compensate the intending insured           complainant no. 1, aptly.

            Thus all the points are discussed and the same are in favour of the complainants and complaint case succeeds.

            Hence,

                                                                                    Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed with cost against the O.P.

The O.P is directed to cancel the policy and to refund the premium amount of Rs. 46000/- to the complainant no 1 within 30 days from this date.

The O.P is also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000/- towards cost to the complainant no 1 within 30 days from this date, failing which, entire amounts will carry interest @10% p.a from the date of default till its realization.

Complainant no 1 at liberty to get the order executed through this Forum.

             Let a plain copy of judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rule.

 

                                    Member                                                                                               President

 

Dictated and corrected by me

 

            Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

 

           

Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed with cost against the O.P.

The O.P is directed to cancel the policy and to refund the premium amount of Rs. 46000/- to the complainant no 1 within 30 days from this date.

The O.P is also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000/- towards cost to the complainant no 1 within 30 days from this date, failing which, entire amounts will carry interest @10% p.a from the date of default till its realization.

Complainant no 1 at liberty to get the order executed through this Forum.

             Let a plain copy of judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rule.

 

                                    Member                                                                                               President