Date of Filing: 13.05.2019

                                                          Date of Order:  30.03.2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – I, HYDERABAD

P r e s e n t

   HON’BLE  Smt. P. Kasthuri B.Com, L.L.M., PRESIDENT(FAC)

HON’BLE Shri  K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B.,   MEMBER

On this the  Tuesday  the 30^th  day, of March 2021

C.C.No. 187/2019

Between       

Mr. Kakara Raja Kishore S/o Basavaraju,

Aged about 38 years, Cell No.  9966963633,

H.No. 32-127/166, 2^nd Floor,

Plot No. 166 Street No.6, Satya Sai Enclave,

Indra Nagar, Kanajiguda, Secunderabad,

Telangana- 500009.

                                                                                                                              ….Complainant

And

1. Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Branch Manager,

Door No. 9-1-125/1/, 1^st Floor, Sidharth Plaza,

Sarojini Devi Road, Hyderabad – 500003

Above DCB Bank PH.No. 964266669

2. Agent/Broker Code : 20205834,

Agent Broker name MRs. Mamatha.K, Reliance Nippoon

Life Insurance ,

Plot No. 602, Shanu Apartment Banjarahills,

Hyderabad

Telangana – 500034 Ph.No. 9390449442                           ….Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainant                                     : PIP

Counsel for the Opposite parties                                 : Mr. A. Naveen Kumar

O R D E R

(By Shri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B.,  MEMBER on behalf of the bench)

1.       The complainant has instituted the above consumer complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum-I, Hyderabad with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.90,000/- paid by the complainant to the opposite party against the policy concerned, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony caused on account of deficiency in service, t award costs of the complaint and to grant any other reliefs as it deems and proper under the circumstances of the case. 

2.                The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the agent of the opposite party explained to the complainant as to the features of the policy and on being convinced and trusting him remitted an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards the first premium of the policy.  Subsequently the opposite parties issued the policy No.52628591 dated 31.03.2016 against which the premiums to be paid for a period of 15 years @ Rs.30,000/- per year.  The said policy was issued after the lookin period of 15 days as such he has been deprived of an opportunity to cancel the issued policy within the prescribed lookin period, if he is entitled.  After receiving the policy he came to know that the agent  was the wife of the manager of the Head Office and to cancel the same when he tried to reach the branch office of the opposite parties but came to know that there was no such office.

3.                On visiting the head office of the opposite party he was convinced to pay two more premiums to get the amount paid back Rs.90,000/- but after payment of 3 premiums when he approached the authorities concerned he was told to pay all the premiums otherwise he is not entitled to any benefits of the policy.  Considering these facts he stated that the agent has cheated him as well as the opposite party also misguided him on the false misrepresentations made by the agent as well as the opposite party by deciding that he is not interested to continue to he policy and asked it to cancel the policy and to refund the paid amount of Rs.90,000/- which the opposite party did not accept it.  Under the circumstances, the complainant stated that he has filed the above complaint prayed the District Forum to grant reliefs as stated supra.

4.                The opposite party has filed its written version denying the allegations made in the complaint except admitting inter alia such facts as issuance of policy to the complainant, payment of three yearly premiums totalling to an amount of Rs.90,000/-. It further stated that the complainant after having fully understood the terms and conditions of the policy has signed the  proposal form and subsequent to it  issued the above policy as such denying the allegations of deficiency in service on their part. 

5.                During the course of enquiry the complainant has file evidence affidavit reiterating the material facts of the complaint and to support the same marked his documents as Exs.A1 to A6.

6.                No evidence affidavit and no documents have been filed by the opposite party.  The complainant has filed his written arguments and the opposite parties have got filed their written arguments.  Heard the oral arguments advanced by both sides.

7.                After having heard both the sides, perused the documents on record.

8.                The following points have emerged for determination for arrival of  just and proper conclusion:

1. Whether the complainant could prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?
3. To what relief?

9.                It is settled law that parties to the insurance contract are abide by the terms and conditions of the policy concerned.  In the instant case the complainant has not proved that the issued policy has been sent to him after free look in period   from ex.A4 regarding email conversation between the above parties reveals that the opposite parties advised the complainant on 18.03.2019 to approach the grievance cell of the opposite parties in case the complainant is not satisfied with the remedy provided by them  within 8 weeks.  Afterwards on 19.04.2019 on contacting the IRDA Grievance Cell by the complainant it is advised him to approach the Insurance Ombudsman by informing him that it is ready to settle the dispute on cancellation of the policy and ready to pay Rs.43,000/-.  Having not satisfied with the remedy provided by the IRDA the complainant has chosen to file the above complaint.  From the above it is very clear that there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties as they are ready to settle the dispute qua above policy and ready to pay Rs.43,000/- in accordance with the terms and conditions.  Considering the circumstances of the case we have come to the conclusion that opposite parties are not liable for their actions of not refunding the entire amount of RS.90,000/- as claimed along with other reliefs as claimed by the complainant.

 10.             From the above discussion and in view of the above findings the complainant is not entitled to any relies as prayed by him.

          In the result the complaint is dismissed with no order has to be costs.

     Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by him, pronounced by us on this the
     30^th  day of  March, 2021.

   MEMBER                                                                                 PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

NIL

Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.A1 – Copy of Reliance Life Insurance  dt. 03.04.2016.

Ex.A2 – Copy of Renewal  premium receipt dt. 13.02.2017.

Ex.A3 – Copy of  Renewal  premium receipt dt. 24.02.2018

Ex.A4 – Copy of Email conversations mail to /from IRDA Authorities.

Ex.A5 – Copy of Reliance Nippon Life Insurance bond

Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite party :

Nil.

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT