KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 303/2012

JUDGMENT DATED:03.05.2014

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                        :  PRESIDENT

SHRI. V.V. JOSE                                                         : MEMBER

Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

Through Authorized Signatory,

Regd. Office, One India Bulls Centre Tower,

15^th and 16^th floor, Jupiter Mill Compound,                  : APPELLANT

841, Senapati Bapat Marg,

Elphinstone road, Mumbai-400 013.

(By Adv:Sri. C.S. Rajmohan)

            Vs.

Achuthan Mathoor,

3D Link Laxman, SA Road,

Valaniam Balam,                                                                             : RESPONDENT

Kerala-682 016.

(By Adv:Sri. Narayan.R)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the 1^st opposite party in CC.218/09 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum dated, September 30, 2011 directing the first opposite party to revive Exts.A1 and A2 insurance policies accepting the premium and to refund the entire amount received by the complainant in excess of the premium.

2.      The case of the complainants as testified by him as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:-

On 17.03.2003 complainant availed a life insurance policy from the first opposite party and on 12.03.2003 the wife of the complainant availed another policy.  Both the policies were for the period of 10 years with 6% guarantee return.  Complainant and his wife paid six years premium regularly.  The complainant and his wife agreed to switch over the said policies to a new scheme as suggested by 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties.  On 8.8.2008 complainant had signed Form-A.  But when the complainant received the new policy the name of the insured policies in both the policies had been changed to one Radhika Acuthan aged 21 years.  On verification it is revealed that signature of the complainant and wife were forged in the Form.  Therefore complainant and his wife cancelled the new scheme within the free look period.  Therefore complainant filed the complaint seeking to reinstate the previous policies and to direct the opposite parties to refund the excess amount paid towards the policies.

3.      First opposite party is M/s Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd. , Mumbai who in their version contended that it was at the request of the complainants and his wife the policies were converted into Gold Plus Scheme and that therefore complaint has to be dismissed.

4.      Opposite parties 2 to 4 remained absent before the Forum.    Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A10 were marked on their side and the contesting first opposite party did not adduce any evidence before the Forum.

5.      On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that it was without the consent of the complainant and his wife, first opposite party issued the fresh policy and therefore directed the first opposite party to revive Ext.A1 and A2 policies accepting the premium amounts without any interest and to refund the excess amount received by them.  The first opposite party has now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

6.      Heard both the counsels.

7.      The following points arise for consideration:-

1.   Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?

2.   Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

8.      It is admitted that complainant and his wife were holding Ext.A1 and A2 policies and Ext.A3 and A4 receipts go to show that both of them remitted premium for six years.  It is also not disputed that subsequently the policies were switched over to a new scheme and the name of the policy holder was changed to Radhika Achuthan.  But during the free look period complainant and his wife cancelled the same on 6.09.2008 as the signature in the Form-A appeared to be forged.  As the complainant had cancelled the new policy during the free look period the first opposite party is bound to revive the original policy Exts.A1 and A2.  That being so the Forum is perfectly justified in directing the first opposite party to revive Ext.A1 and A2 policies accepting the premium without interest and to refund the entire excess amount received by them.  The finding of the Forum on this point is confirmed.

In the result we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/-.

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

V.V. JOSE          : MEMBER

VL.