DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 21^st day of June, 2024

                                                                   Filed on: 16/05/2015

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                             Member

C.C. NO. 296/2015

COMPLAINANT

P.V. Mohandas, S/o. (late) P.I. Velayudhan, Plot No. 8/499D, ‘Karthika’ House, Mavelipuram, Kakkanadu P.O., Ernakulam, Cochin 682030. Rep. by POA holder K. Anilkumar

(Rep. by Adv. Jeswin P. Varghese, Vattoly Complex, 2^nd Floor, Kombara Jn., Cochin 18)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

1. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd., Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opp. To Golf Course, DLF Phase V, Sector 43, Gurgaon, Haryana 122003. Rep. by its Managing Director
2. The Manager, Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd., 2^nd Floor, Swapnil Enclave, Plot No, 7, CMD Scheme, High Court Junction, Cochin 682031.

(OP No. 1&2 Rep. by Adv. Saji Isaac K.J., 311, HB Flats, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036)

3. Jayarajan, Manager, Indusind Bank Ltd., Opp. To New Jayalakshmi Silks, MG Road, Ernakulam, Cochin682035.

(Rep. by Adv. Kumar, G. Mini & P.S. Sreeprasad, ‘Parvathy Nivas’, Tagore Nagar, Ponneth Temple Road, Kadavanthara, Cochin 20)

F I N A L    O R D E R

V. Ramachandran, Member:

This complaint is filed by the Sri. P.V. Mohandas S/o. (late) P.I. Velayudhan, ‘Karthika’ House, Mavelipuram, Kakkanadu alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties. The complainant states that he has maintained an NRE account No. 413133 at Indusind Bank, Kakkanad. The 3^rd opposite party was Branch Manager of said Bank. During 2010, when the amount in NRE account exceeded Rs.10 lakh, the complainant asked the 3^rd opposite party to avail fixed deposit for Rs.10 lakh. The Bank was under contract with Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. to pursue customers to take Insurance Policies. The 3^rd opposite party pursued the complainant to take life insurance policy of Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. making the complainant to believe that he need to make one-time payment of Rs.10 lakh only and the said amount would carry interest between 15 to 20% per year and the amount with interest will be transferred to his NRE account after three years. He has further made the complainant to believe that the term of policy is 3 years and there would be life coverage of Rs.1 crore during the said term. The offer is found attractive because the complainant was earning interest about 4% for his NRE fixed deposit and further there was no life cover. Moreover, the 3^rd opposite party has brought the complainant to another person introducing him as Agent Advisor of Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. employed at Indusind Bank and he has also assured that the complainant need to make one-time payment of Rs.10 lakh and said amount would carry interest between 15 to 20% per year and the amount with interest will be transferred to his NRE account ager three years and further there would be life coverage of Rs.1 crore during said term. They have also told the complainant that another NRI from USA has deposited the amount in same scheme and he has received profit more than 30% and complainant may also get profit up to 30% of his deposited amount. The complainant therefore trusted the opposite parties and transferred Rs.10 lakh from his account on 26/08/2010 and availed the life insurance policy. He has also put his signature on a few white papers and printed forms as insisted by the opposite parties.

The opposite parties had told the complainant that Rs.10 lakh plus interest will be credited in his NRE account on expiry of 3 years. Therefore the complainant contacted Branch Manager of Indusind Bank in August 2013 to confirm the transfer of account. Then he asked complainant to approach 1^st opposite party directly. By the time, 3^rd opposite party is transferred to another Branch. But the complainant does not have any records relating to Policy. He attempted to contact the 3^rd opposite party also to get the details. Thereafter, a cheque for Rs.69,224/- dated 02/09/2012 is handed over to the wife of complainant, when he was abroad. The opposite parties committed unfair trade practice and this resulted huge loss to the complainant. Moreover, they committed fraud on him. While taking the policy, the complainant was made to believe that he need to make one-time payment of Rs.10 lakh only and said amount would carry interest minimum @ 15% and it can be withdrawn after three years and there would be life coverage of Rs.1 crore during the said term. The offer is found attractive because the complainant was earning interest less than 4% for his NRE amount and further there was no life cover. Moreover, an Agent Advisor of Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. also made the complainant to believe that what the 3^rd opposite party conveyed is true. In this circumstance only, the complainant decided to avail the policy. But the opposite parties committed unfair trade practice in issuing cheque for Rs.69,224/- against the deposit of Rs.10 lakh. The complainant is therefore entitled for refund of Rs.10 lakh with interest @ 15% payable from August 2010. As such, the amount payable till May 2015 is Rs.17,12,500/-

The complainant has not received any receipts or documents from the opposite parties with respect to the insurance policy. After the issuance of cheque, he received information regarding the amount he spent for policy. The 3^rd opposite party and Agent of 1^st opposite party had told the complainant that there will not be any receipts because it is aninsurance policy taken through the Bank and Rs.10 lakh plus interest will be credited in his NRE account on expiry of 3 years. The complainant was in very good relationship with 3^rd opposite party, who was the Manager of Indusind Bank and hence he trusted them.

Upon notice opposite party No. 1&2 entered into appearance and filed their version.

In the version the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 contented that the complainant had taken a Aviva New Pension Elite Policy on 28/08/2010 with a premium amount of Rs.10 lakh and annual premium frequency and premium paying term of 20 years and policy terms of 20 years. The allegation in the complaint that the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act is false and hence denied. The policy is a unit linked policy and is a speculative investment and is a speculative gain and the matter does not come under the Consumer Protection Act. Opposite parties stated that the Bank was under no obligation to persuade the customers for taking insurance policies from the opposite parties. The policy sold to any person is a voluntary act of the concerned person and is never imposed. The allegation of the complainant that the 3^rd opposite party has brought the complainant to another person introducing him as agent advisor of Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd and his alleged assurances as stated in the complaint are not within the knowledge of the 1 & 2 opposite parties. The complainant has put his signatures on a few white papers and printed forms as insisted by the opposite parties is false and hence denied. The allegation that the opposite parties committed fraud on the complainant is false and hence denied.

The complainant had produced 4 documents which are marked as Exbt. A1 and A2. Opposite party filed one document which is marked as Exbt. B1. Exbt. A1 is the photocopy of Power of Attorney, Exbt. A2 is the copy of Account statement and Exbt. B1is the copy of letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant.

From the above documents and also from the facts and figures submitted by complainant the Commission has verified the following points:

1. Whether the complainant is sustained to any sort of deficiency of service, or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is eligible to get any relief from the opposite party?
3. Cost of the proceedings if any?

On going through the complaint, version and from the evidence produced by either side it can be seen that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.10 lakh with the expectation to get 15 to 20% interest per annum.

In fact, the complainant while on cross examination as deposed that “(Q) നിങ്ങൾ Policy ക്കു വേണ്ടി  annual premium മാത്രമേ അടച്ചിട്ടുള്ളൂ എന്ന് പറയുന്നു (A) ശരിയാണ് one-time payment എന്നാണ് ബാങ്കും Insurance Company representative ഉം പറഞ്ഞത്(Q) Proof Affidavit ൽകാണുന്ന ഒപ്പ് നിങ്ങളുടേതാണോ  (A) അതെ (Q) നിങ്ങൾ ഹാജരാക്കിയിരിക്കുന്ന Passport ൻറെ കോപ്പിയിൽ കാണുന്ന ഒപ്പ് നിങ്ങളുടേതാണോ (A) അതെ(Q) നിങ്ങൾ ഇവിടെ ഹാജരാക്കിയിരിക്കുന്ന Power of Attorney യിൽ കാണിച്ചിരിക്കുന്ന ഒപ്പും നിങ്ങളുടേതാണ് (A) അതെ(Q)  Power of Attorney യിലും Passport  ലും Proof Affidavit ലും ഉള്ള നിങ്ങളുടെ ഒപ്പുകൾ മൂന്നു തരത്തിലാണ് എന്ന് പറയുന്നു  (A) എല്ലാം എൻറെ ഒപ്പാണ് എല്ലാം ഒറ്റ തരത്തിലുള്ളതാണ് (Q) Policy terms അനുസരിച്ച് 20 വർഷം നിങ്ങൾ  Premium അടക്കേണ്ടതുണ്ട് എന്ന് പറയുന്നു. (A) തെറ്റാണ് ഒറ്റത്തവണ  deposit  എന്നാണ് ബാങ്കും Insurance  കമ്പനിയും എന്നോട് പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുള്ളത്(Q) നിങ്ങളുടെ Proof Affidavit ൽ OP fraud commit ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ടെന്ന് പറയുന്നു. എന്ത്  fraud ആണ് Ops commit ചെയ്തിട്ടുള്ളത്(A) one-time deposit എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞിട്ട് പിന്നീട്  Premium അടയ്ക്കണമെന്ന് പറഞ്ഞതാണ് fraud(Q)  Proposal form അനുസരിച്ചാണ് Policy issue ചെയ്തത് എന്ന് പറയുന്നു  (A) ഞാൻ Proposal ഒന്നും കൊടുത്തിട്ടില്ല (Q) Policy document കിട്ടിയിട്ടില്ല എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞ് Bank ലോ Insurance കമ്പനിയിലോ നാളിതു വരെ ഏതെങ്കിലും അധികാര സ്ഥാപനത്തിലോ പരാതി കൊടുത്തിട്ടില്ലായെന്നു പറയുന്നു (A) ഇല്ല witness adds deposit ചെയ്യുന്ന സമയത്ത്  policy documents ഉം മറ്റും ബാങ്കിൻറെ custody യിൽ ഉണ്ടായിരിക്കുമെന്നാണ് എന്നോട് പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുള്ളത് (Q) ഇപ്പറഞ്ഞ കാര്യങ്ങൾ കേസിൻറെ ആവശ്യത്തിനായി കളവായി പറയുകയാണെന്ന് പറയുന്നു (A) അല്ല (Q) ഒരു Premium അടച്ച ശേഷം തുടർ  premiums അടയ്ക്കാത്തതുകൊണ്ട് Policy lapse ആകുകയും policy terms അനുസരിച്ച് നിങ്ങൾക്ക് അർഹതപ്പെട്ട തുക Insurance company യിൽ നിന്ന് നിങ്ങൾക്ക് അയച്ചു തന്നിട്ടുണ്ടെന്ന് പറയുന്നു (A) അർഹതപ്പെട്ട തുക കിട്ടിയിട്ടില്ല (Q) നിങ്ങൾക്ക് OP 1&2 ൽ നിന്നും യാതൊരു തുകയും കിട്ടാൻ അർഹതയില്ല എന്ന് പറയുന്നു. (A) അർഹതയുണ്ട്.”

The 3^rd opposite party is the Branch Manager of the Bank. The complainant had deposited an amount in the bank while the 3^rd opposite party was the Bank Manager who had instructed the complainant to make one-time deposit of Rs.10 lakh. 3^rd opposite party made the complainant to believe that he need to make one-time payment of Rs.10 lakh and the said amount shall carry interest between 15 to 20% per year and the amount with interest will be transferred to his NRE account after 3 years and also would be a life coverage for Rs.1 crore during the said time.

The main allegation of the complainant is that the 3^rd opposite party, who was the Branch Manager of the opposite party firm made him believe that if an amount of Rs.10 lakh is deposited as FD the complainant shall get 15% to 20% interest which will be transferred into NRE account on expiring of 3 years’ time plus life time insurance coverage.

The complainant has deposited this amount believing the words of the 3^rd opposite party, but he had subsequently learnt that this promise of opposite party was only a false one.

Even taking the argument of the complainant into face value expecting a return of 15% to 20% of interest per year just by depositing an amount of Rs.10 lakh after a short period of 3 years, complainant had not produced any documents to substantiate his claim and above that he had deposed in box that he had remitted only the annual premium alone for policy. Moreover the complainant shall not fall under the purview of a consumer since and if the payment is made for amassment of undue profit. Hence the Commission do not find any merit in the complaint. The examination of merit of the complaint is limited by the Commission only to the extent of allegations raised in the complaint regarding deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and the Commission is no way interfering into any other aspects of transaction of the alleged deposit and allied conditions made between the complainant and the opposite parties, if the deposited amount is still with the opposite parties.

In this circumstance Point No. (1) is found against the complainant. Since Point No. (1) is found against the complainant Point No. (2) and (3) are decided accordingly and hence the complaint is dismissed. 

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 21^st day of June, 2024

V.Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Forwarded/By Order

Assistant Registrar

Appendix

Complainant’s Evidence

Exbt. A1:    Copy of Power of Attorney

Exbt. A2:    Copy of Account statement

Opposite party’s Exhibits

Exbt. B1:    Copy of letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant.

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                  

kp/

CC No. 296/2015

Order Date: 21/06/2024