IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

BEFORE         Hon’ble Dr. Justice S.TAMILVANAN           PRESIDENT

                         Thiru.K.BASKARAN                         JUDICIAL  MEMBER

 F.A.NO. 17/2014

(Against order in CC. No.220/2010 dated 30.5.2011 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore)

                                                          WEDNESDAY THE 18^TH   DAY OF JULY 2018

The Branch Manager

Canara Bank

49, Sathy Road,

Ramakrishnapuram, Ganapathy                            

Coimbatore 641 006                                ..Appellant/2^nd opposite party

                                            Vs

1.Arukutti

S/o Subhana Gounder

124, South Garden

Keeranatham,

Coimbatore 35                                    .. 1^st Respondent/ Complainant

2. The Manager,

Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited

Jaya Enclave, Avinashi Road,

Coimbatore                                        .. 2^nd Respondent/1^st opposite party

Counsel for Appellant/2^nd opposite party    : M/s K.P.Kiran Rao,

Counsel for 1^st Respondent                       : M/s P.M.Duraisamy

Counsel for 2^nd Respondent                      : M/s Elveera Ravindran

        The 1^st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Forum allowed the complaint as against the 2^nd opposite party/ appellant. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.30.5.2011 in CC. No.220/2010.

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 19.6.2018, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on bothside, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:

Dr. JUSTICE S. TAMILVANAN,  PRESIDENT   

1.       The 2^nd opposite party before the District Forum is the appellant herein.

2.       The case of the complainant is that she had approached the Appellant/ 2^nd opposite party/ bank for depositing her hard earned money as one time deposit for regular return in the form of interest.   But the 2^nd opposite party, had invested the said amount with the 1^st opposite party/ insurance company in the scheme called Pension Plus Policy, without the complainant’s consent.  Complainant also further added that she being an illiterate women, believed the opposite parties.  But without any express consent and concurrence of the complainant, the amount of the complainant was deposited in the policy, which bears the regular premium of Rs.2,50,000/- per annum, which is beyond the capacity of the complainant.  Therefore, she filed a complaint before the District Forum, praying for converting the existing policy into one time investment, or to refund the policy amount alongwith 12% interest and compensation of Rs.50000/-.

3.       The 1^st opposite party/ 2^nd Respondent herein submitted that the policy was issued only after the complainant submitted the duly completed proposal form that had been signed by the complainant with declaration.  If the complainant is dissatisfied with the policy terms and conditions or the benefits available under the policy, she can very well cancel the policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy. 

4.       The appellant/ 2^nd opposite party submitted that after explaining the customer about the said policy, based on the request only the 2^nd opposite party helped the complainant for filling up the proposals and forward it with requisite documents to the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant and his wife expressed their desire to invest the money with some growth plus scheme alongwith security.   There is no deficiency in service on their part, and thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

5.       The District Forum after hearing bothside submissions, and on evaluating the material records, passed an order on merit, by holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party/ bank, allowed the complaint.   Against the order impugned, the opposite parties are before us now, praying for dismissal of the complaint.

 6.      We have heard the learned counsel appearing on bothside, perused the material records, and the order impugned, and passed the following order.

7.       On perusal of the well considered order of the Forum below, we concur with the stand taken by the District Forum, by holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party/ Bank.  As was held by the District Forum, the appellant as per exhibit E.A4 had stated that the policy holder/complainant requested the 2^nd opposite party/ bank to deposit the entire amount as one time investment, instead of regular premium, but inadvertently the appellant had opted for Pension Plus Policy.  Thus as per the above statement, it is clear that without the consent of the complainant, the amount was deposited in the above Pension scheme.  For the mistake committed by the appellant/ 2^nd opposite party, the 1^st opposite party/ Insurance company is no way responsible.  Therefore we are of the considered opinion that the finding of the District Forum that there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/ 2^nd opposite party is well founded one, which requires no interference and deserves to be confirmed.   Accordingly, this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

9.       In the result, by confirming the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore, made in CC.No.220/2010 dt.30.5.2011, the appeal is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost in this appeal. 

            K. BASKARAN                                                            S. TAMILVANAN

        JUDICIAL MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT