Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/276/2018

M.G. Balasubramanian, Ariyalur-Tk (DT) - Complainant(s)

Versus

Area Sales Manager, Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance and another - Opp.Party(s)

PARTY IN PERSON

30 May 2023

ORDER

6IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble THIRU  JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH  :     PRESIDENT

                 THIRU R   VENKATESAPERUMAL         :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 276 of 2018

[Against the order passed in C.C. No.11 of 2017 dated 19.04.2018 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F., Ariyalur].

 

Tuesday, the 30^th day of May 2023

 

M.G.Balasubramanian

S/o. M.Gurusamy

No.4/284 Mela Veethi

Thirumanur,

Ariyalur - 621 715.                                      .. Appellant/Complainant

 

 

- Vs –

 

 

1.  The Area Sales Manager

     Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance

     I Floor, A2 Sambasivam Pillai Street

     Ariyalur.

 

2.  The Senior Vice President

     Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual

         Life Insurance, 7th floor

     Zone 4, No.21, Infinity Park

     General A.K.Vaidya Marg

     Malad (East), Mumbai-400 097.             ..  Respondents/

                                                                             Opposite Parties

 

For the Appellant/Complainant            :       Party-in-person 

 

Counsel for the Respondents/

                        Opposite Parties         :  M/s.A.S.Kailasam & Associates

                                               

        This appeal came before us for final hearing on 08.02.2023, and on hearing the arguments of the Appellant, in person and the counsel for the Respondents and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

                Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ariyalur in its order dated 19.04.2018 in C.C. No.11 of 2017, the present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by the complainant for enhancement of the compensation.

 

 

         2.  The case of the complainant before the District Forum is that on 21.06.2013 at about 01.40 pm, he received a call on his mobile from the office of the 2nd opposite party informing that on account of opening of their new branch at Ariyalur, they are granting certain offers such as free insurance policy and interest free loan.  On 22.06.2013 at about 11.43 pm, again the same lady called the complainant and asked him to come to their office.  When the complainant along with his wife went to the 1st opposite party office the said lady filled up a form and informed the complainant that they are issuing a life insurance policy for a sum assured of Rs.1 lakh.  She further informed that if the complainant avails a policy for an annual premium of Rs.30,000/- he can enjoy 5 offers and one among them is 80% interest free loan of Rs.2,40,000/-.  The complainant agreed for the same and paid a sum of Rs.500/- as service charges and received Receipt No.1623.  On 26.06.2013, the complainant had also given a cheque for Rs.30,000/- drawn on Canara Bank towards the premium amount and obtained a receipt for the same.  The opposite parties had informed that after a period of 6 months they would sanction the interest free loan.  They had also given a document of Reliance General Insurance policy terming it as life insurance policy for Rs.1 lakh and had stated that he would get Rs.82,000/- after a period of 5 years.  On perusal of the said document, the complainant found lot of errors and hence he wrote a letter to the 1st opposite party requesting them to rectify the errors.  But there was no response.  The interest free loan was also not sanctioned by the opposite parties.  Hence, the complainant lodged a complaint before the Collector on 06.06.2014.  Based on the said complaint, the Ariyalur police called both the parties for enquiry on 24.06.2014, where the opposite party gave an assurance that they would grant loan if the complainant submits a written requisition.  Since the opposite parties had agreed to grant interest free loan, the complaint was closed.  Thereafter, on 01.07.2014 the complainant had sent a letter to the opposite parties requesting for sanction of the loan.  Again there was no response.  On the other hand, the opposite parties compelled the complainant to pay the 2nd annual premium amount on 08.07.2014.  Since the complainant was informed that the loan papers would be processed only if the 2nd premium is paid, the complainant paid the 2nd premium by cash to the 1st opposite party.  But no receipt was issued to the said payment.  On 08.07.2015 when the complainant went to the office of the 2nd opposite party to pay the 3rd annual premium amount, he found that the office was closed.  Therefore, it is clear that through attractive advertisements and false assurances, the opposite parties are cheating the consumers.  Hence, alleging deficiency of service the complainant has filed the complaint, seeking the following directions to the opposite parties:- 

1. to issue receipt for Rs.30,000/- paid by the complainant towards the 2nd annual premium;
2. to accept the 3rd annual premium amount payable on 08.07.2015 without any penalty and renew the policy;
3. to pay the maturity amount of the 5 years life insurance policy;
4. to sanction the interest free loan of Rs.2,40,000/- with the repayable period of 14 years;
5. to pay a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant due to deficiency of service by the opposite parties; and
6. to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses.

       

        3.  The said complaint was resisted by the opposite parties by filing a version stating that the complaint is barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act.  The policy was issued to the complainant on 08.07.2013 and all the terms and conditions have been clearly mentioned in the policy contract that was delivered to the complainant, as admitted by the complainant.  Despite receipt of the policy documents, the complainant did not approach the 2nd opposite party.  The complaint has been filed on 14.12.2015 i.e., almost after two years, which is beyond the limitation period of two years.  Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.  Further, the complainant had made the payment of the subscription premium at the time of availing the policy and the next premium was due on 08.07.2014.  The complainant was accordingly informed vide renewal premium notice to make the payment of the said renewal premium.  But the complainant had failed to pay the renewal premium, inspite of the reminder sent to him. The complainant had suppressed these material facts and filed the complaint. Further, the agent from whom the complainant had obtained the policy is not an agent of the 2^nd opposite party.  Therefore, the opposite parties are not responsible for the assurances given by the said agent.  An Insurance Broker is an independent entity licensed by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), who used to advise their customers on their insurance needs and thereafter they arrange for insurance policies from any of the insurance companies as per their own decision and as per the customer’s choice.  The Insurance Companies do not have any administrative control over the Insurance brokers.  In fact, the opposite parties do not authorise the brokers to source policies based on any allurements or false assurances.  All the policies are sourced after explaining the complete details regarding the terms and conditions as well as the features of the policy.  The complaint does not raise any consumer dispute as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.  Therefore, the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  In accordance to Clause 6(2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policy Holders’ Interests) Regulations, 2002 every policy document when sent is accompanied by a Welcome Letter which clearly mentions that in case policy holder is not satisfied with the features or the terms and conditions of the policy, he can withdraw/ return the policy under the ‘Free Look Period’ provision.  But, the complainant retained the policy document and did not raise any objection towards the policy during the said ‘Free Look Period’ with any of his grievance regarding the policy or any of its terms and conditions or any queries in respect to the terms and conditions of the policy.  The policy is a legal contract between the policy holder and the insurer and as such the parties to the policy are bound by its terms and conditions.  Admittedly, the proposal form was signed by the complainant and on the basis of the said proposal form the subject policy was issued by the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant had paid the subscription premium at the time of availing the policy and the next renewal premium was due on 08.07.2014.  Accordingly, a renewal premium notice dated 12.06.2014 was sent to the complainant.  Since the renewal premium was not paid, the 2^nd opposite party by letter dated 08.11.2014 had informed the complainant that the policy had lapsed with effect from 12.08.2014 and the life insured is no longer covered for life cover benefits or any of the rider benefits.  The complainant was also made aware that if the policy is not revived by 08.01.2015 (6 months from last due date) he has to undergo major revival formalities.  Inspite of the same, the complainant has not approached the 2^nd opposite party for revival of the policy, with renewal premium.  The complainant had failed to establish any cause of action against the 2nd opposite party.  In the instant case, the opposite party had received a duly filled and signed proposal form dated 03.07.2013 along with the other requisite documents and the first premium instalment payment with a request for seeking an insurance policy for his life under the Kotak Assured Income Plan.  At the time of obtaining the policy, the complainant had also signed a declaration in the proposal form regarding the terms and conditions of the subject policy.  The complainant had voluntarily opted for the policy term as 30 years and premium payment to be made annually, with the premium payment term as 15 years, in clause 3 of the proposal form. The allegations of the complainant that along with the policy document he was offered free Reliance Life Insurance Policy of Rs.1,00,000/- and loan of Rs.2,40,000/- without interest and to repay in 14 years are denied for want of knowledge.  The opposite party is in the business of providing life insurance and is not in the business of banking, so as to provide any loan as offered by the agent.  Therefore, the question of providing free life insurance does not arise.  The complainant must have been aware and alert while buying such policies, the principle of ‘Caveat Emptor’ as enshrined under the Consumer Protection Act casts an obligation on the consumer to be aware of fraud/ mis-selling of products.  The 2^nd opposite party has already filed a complaint against the agent who has been mis-selling the policies and defrauding innocent public.  As per records, the complainant has paid only the first premium and no subsequent premiums were received.  Hence, absolutely there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and thus sought for dismissal of the complaint.

       

        4.  In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, along with proof affidavit 13 documents were filed and the same were marked as Ex.A1 to A13.  On the side of the opposite parties, along with proof affidavits 6 documents were filed and the same were marked as Ex.B1 to B6.

 

        5.  The District Forum, on analyzing the entire evidence and records, had observed that it is the specific case of the complainant that a lady from the office of the 2nd opposite party called him on his mobile and pressurized him to take Insurance Policy and also offered to grant interest free loan.  Though the opposite parties have denied the case of the complainant they have not stated in the version that the lady who had called the complainant over phone is not their staff.  Hence, it shows the unfair trade practice of the opposite parties and thus awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses.  Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded, the complainant has filed the present appeal.

 

        6.  Heard the submissions made by the appellant/ complainant in person and the counsel for the respondent/ opposite parties and have carefully gone through the entire material available on record. 

 

        7.  It is the specific case of the appellant/complainant that based on the false assurances given by the respondents/opposite parties through a lady staff, he was made to take the insurance policy.  The staff had given assurances that they would grant interest free loan.  But, when the complainant approached them for interest free loan, the opposite parties gave evasive reply.  Hence, it is the contention of the complainant that he was deceived by the staff of the opposite parties.  As observed by the District Forum, though the 2nd opposite party denied the allegations of the complainant, they have not stated that the lady, who called the complainant from the 2nd opposite party office, is not their staff.  Secondly, the complainant have assertively made a complaint that he went to the office of the 2nd opposite party on several occasions, where he was given evasive reply, after taking the policy.  For these allegations there was no proper answer in the version filed by the opposite parties.  It appears that they have given false assurances to develop their business.  Under such circumstances, the District Forum had come to a conclusion that there is unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties and had awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation. 

 

        8.  We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum.  In fact, the opposite parties have not filed any appeal challenging the findings rendered by the District Forum, which would show that the opposite parties had accepted the order of the District Forum.  So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the District Forum could be enhanced to Rs.20,000/- which would meet the interest of justice. 

 

           9.  In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part.  The sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded as compensation towards mental agony and hardship is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-.  Except the above modification, the order dated 19.04.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ariyalur in C.C. No.11 of 2017, is confirmed in all other aspects.   Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.

 

 

 

 

R   VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                        R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

 

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/May/2023