DOF. 17 / 10 /08 DOO.24/06/2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 24th day of June 2010 C.C.No.227/2008 Saji Joseph, Kattottu puthan purakkal, P.O.Velimanam 670 704. Complainant (Rep. by Adv.Joe George) 1. Manager, INGVysya Life Insurance Co., Hassay complex, Fort Road, Kannur 2. 2. The CEO ING Vysya Life Insurance Co. Ltd., ING House, 5th floor, 22, M.G.Road, Opposite Parties Bangalore 1. (Rep. by M.K.Associates for Ops 1 & 2) 3. ChandraMohanan.C, C/o.Arcadia Share & Stock brokers, J.RComplex, Near Koyili Hospital, Kannur. O R D E R Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite partiers to refund the premium amount of Rs.25,000/- along with a compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-. The case of the complaint is that he had subscribed to a unit linked policy with an annual premium of Rs.25000/- for a period of 10 years. He had subscribed the policy by believing the words of opposite parties that he will get a benefit of income tax under section 80 cc and an insurance coverage of Rs.1,25,000/- and will get large financial benefits by switching his funds to different funds owing to the fluctuations in the share market. The complainant had given instructions to opposite party to deposit his fund in equity funds. By anticipating a crash in share market, the complainant had issued a switch and premium Re-direction Form to 3rd opposite party at Kannur and he had received the said form and a photocopy of the same with the seal of opposite party was given to complainant. During 2008, after the crash in the share market, the complaint approached the opposite party for switching fund from debt fund to equity fund. At that time he came to know that his entire fund is inequity funds and that he suffered huge loss. When enquired with the opposite party, he was told that he had not given the switch and premium Re-direction Form, but the complainant had temporarily lost the copy of the form with seal of opposite party. The opposite party w as repeating the same answer, whenever he approached them that he has not given the said form. When he contacted t the Bangalore office they directed him to lodge a complaint. Since the 3rd opposite party have not taken his complaint into consideration, he did not remit the second year premium as he has lost faith in them and therefore he had to remit income tax and lost insurance coverage of Rs.1,25,000/-. When he got back the temporarily lost switch and premium Re-direction form he approached the Manger of the Kannur branch that he was requested by the Kannur Manager not to create problem and the Bangalore office and the Manger of the Kannur informed the complainant that entire monitory loss occurred to the complainant will be taken care by the company. But they had not taken any steps to settle the case and hence the actions of opposite parties had caused monitory loss to the complainant as well as he had suffered mental agony. Hence the complaint. Upon receiving the notices from the Forum all the opposite parties appeared and filed their version. Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed version admitting that the complainant had subscribed INGS Life Plus plan bearing No.00603160 on 8.3.07 for a sum assurance of Rs.1,25,000/- and the premium was for Rs.25,000/-. The premium paid by the policy holder is credited after deducting various charges like mortality charges, premium allocation charge and fund management charge and these credited amount shall be utilized for purchase of units in the Unit linked funds such as Debt fund, scheme fund, equity fund with prior approval of IRDA and the policy holder is given a direction to direct the allocation of amounts available for investment in one or more unit linked investment. All requests for partial withdrawal surrender and switching of units shall be in writing submitted to company’s customer care centre. They denied that the complainant had personally handed over a request for switching the fund from equity fund to debt fund on 16.10.07. Such request was not received either at Kannur branch or at Bangalore and the complainant failed to produce any proof at that time. Even though the opposite party had searched for the same, all their efforts are in vein. But the opposite parties were ready and willing to give retrospective effect to the request for switch so as to enable the complainant to get the fund value based on the unit price as on 16.10.07, on the assumption that request for switch was received on16.10.07. But the complainant was not ready to accept the offer and demanded huge money as compensation. But now the complainant has come out with a copy after 3rd opposite party has left the service of opposite parities 1 and 2 and hence the genuiness of that demand is in suspicion and hence the complainant has come before the Forum with malafide intention. The complainant had purposefully left the premises. The payment of premium and request for switch are two transactions and the complainant is trying to salvage his loss. The opposite party is not liable for any damage due to lapse of the policy. If the policy is in force, the current fund value of complainant’s policy on 11.12.08 would be Rs.14, 685.7 and as per the request of 16.10.07, the fund value would be Rs.29, 384.15 and hence the fund value of policy is Rs.14, 698.44. So the compensation sought by the complainant is highly excessive. More over the opposite party company is ready and willing to give retrospective effect to the request for switch with effect from 16.10.07, provided that the complainant has to reinstate the policy by paying renewal premium thereby putting the complainant in the same position that he would have been , had the request for switch been effected on 16.10.07. But he is not ready to accept it and hence the intention of the complainant is not genuine. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The 3rd opposite party also field version stating that the case is essentially between the compliant and ING Vysya life Insurance company Ltd. and he had resigned from the company on 3.12.07. The 3rd opposite party further submits that he had witnessed the Switch form produced by the complainant and handed over to the commercial executive Mr.Harish in the presence of Branch Manger, Mr.Rajeev for further action. The acknowledgement was given to the complainant. The lapse must have happened at Kannur or Bangalore office. As far as the claim of the complainant is concerned, fund value would have given. Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the complainant? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? 3. Releif and cost. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 and B1 to B3. Issue Nos. 1 to 3 The case of the complainant is that the opposite party had failed to switch on his equity fund to debt fund as per his switch and premium redirection form dt.16.10.07 and hence he had sustained loss. In order to prove his case he was examined as PW1 and produced documents ie.A1 photocopy of switch and premium redirection forms dt.16,10,.07, A2 photocopy of letter dt.9.8.08 issued by the complainant to 1st opposite party, A3 fund value statement as on 16.10.07, A4 fund value statement as on 17.1.08. In order to disprove the case opposite parties also produced documents i.e. B1 proposal form for unit linked policy, B2, copy of the policy schedule, B3 terms and conditions of policy. The opposite party admits that the complainant had subscribed ING Life Plus Plan bearing No.00603160 as on 8.3.07 for a sum assurance of Rs.1,25,000/- and had paid a premium amount of Rs.25,000/- as the premium for first year. But they denied that the complainant had submitted a switch and premium redirection form in order to transfer his amount from equity fund to debt fund on 16.10.07. But the 3rd opposite party who was the sales manager of the opposite parties 1 and 2 at that time and has filed version admitting that he had witnessed the switch form produced by the complainant and handed over to the commercial executive Mr.Harish in the presence of branch Manger Mr. Rajeev for further action and the acknowledgment was given to the complainant. Complainant has produced these acknowledgement form, which is photocopy of the switch and premium redirection form. This form contains the signature of Mr.Chandramohanan as witness and also the received seal of ING Vysya life Insurance Co. dt.16.10.07. But opposite parties have not denied the contention of 3rd opposite party that he had handed over the original of Ext.A1 to commercial executive in the presence of Branch Manger. But the opposite parties 1 and 2 disputed these forms which are marked as Ext.A1. But a relevant question arises at these point is that what type of documents did the opposite parties used to give, when they were receiving the switch and premium redirection form generally? They have not even murmured about such document. The opposite parties 1 and 2 have duty bound to prove before the Forum that what kind of documents they re usually giving as receipt on the event of receipt of such switch and premium redirection form. Even though 3rd opposite party has not come before the Forum and complainant has not proved the Ext.A1 documents, the opposite parties 1 and 2 were shown their willingness to consider retrospectively, the request for switch so as to enable the complainant to get the fund value based on the unit price as on 16.10.07. But from the facts and circumstances of the case we feel that such willingness was expressed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 only to tackle over the liability of them and the complainant has approached the forum with clear hands. So we are of the opinion that there is deficiency on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 in handling the switch and Premium Redirection form. The complainant admits that he has not paid the premium later on because he had lost his faith in the company. Ext.B1 and B2 shows that the complainant has paid premium and the date of policy commencement i.e. on 8.3.07 for one year and the date of policy maturity is on 8.3.2017. As per Ext.B3 clause 3.3 it was stated that “at any time after completion of 3 policy years, the policy holder may surrender the policy by giving notice in writing to the company. Upon surrender the policy the company shall pay the fund value as reduced by surrender cheques. On such payment the policy shall terminate forthwith and the company will be relieved and discharged from all obligations thereafter. No surrender benefits are payable if less than 1 full year’s premium have been paid. In this case the complainant has paid premium for one full year and hence he is entitled to get surrender benefit the fund value. The non payment of premium is not due to the fault on the part of the complainant, but due to the omission on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2. So the opposite party is liable to pay the fund value to the complainant since his policy is valid up to 8.3.08. As per Ext.A4 i.e. the fund value statement as on 17.1.08 issued by opposite parties 1 and 2 to complainant is 30586.50. So he is entitled to get these amount. It is true that the complainant has suffered financial loss as well as physical and mental pain but no document is before us to assess the loss sustained by him. So we assess it as Rs.2000/- and the complainant is entitled to get Rs.500/- as cost of the proceedings. It is found that the 3rd opposite party has resigned from 1st opposite party and there is no claim against 3rd opposite party and hence he is exonerated from liabilities. So the opposite parties 1 and 2 are liable to pay Rs.30586.50 (rounded to Rs.30587/-_as fund value along with Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant and the complainant is entitled to receive the same . Thus the issues 1 o 3 are found in favour of complainant and order passed accordingly. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay Rs.30587/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Five hundred and eighty seven only) along with Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which the amount of Rs.30587/- will attract interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realizations and the complainant can execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1 photocopy of switch and premium redirection forms A2 photocopy of letter dt.9.8.08 issued by the complainant to 1st opposite party, A3 fund value statement as on 16.10.07, A4 fund value statement as on 17.1.08. Exhibits for the opposite parties B1 proposal form for unit linked policy, B2, copy of the policy schedule, B3 terms and conditions of policy. Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite parties: Nil/ forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
