BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 21st day of December 2013
Filed on : 17/01/2012
PRESENT:
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.28/2012
Between
Jose K.P., : Complainant
S/o. Poulose Cheria, (By Adv. Anto Thomas,
Quarters No. 510/8, V. Sautharam Associates,
FACT Quarters, Ambalamedu P.O., Vrindavan, 40/7777,1st floor,
Ernakulam-682 303, T.D. Road, Near Convent
now res. At Kooliattu Anjullil house, Junction, Kochi-35)
Karimugal P.O., Amabalamedu,
Ernakulam-682 303.
Vs
1.Aviva Life Insurance, Ashirwad : Opposite parties
Towers, Plot No. 2, Old No. 182, (O.P1&2By Adv. Nelson J. Manayil
3rd Floor, Kodambakkam High Road, Edathil building, Market road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Kochi-682 035.)
2.The Manager, Aviva Life Insurance,
Swapnile Enclave, 2nd Floor,
High Court Jun., Cochin-682 031.
3. Asha Surendran, (3rd O.P. absent)
Advisor, Number Y0661073,
Aviva Life Insurance Branch Office,
Swappnile Enclave, Second floor,
High Court Junction, Cochin-682 031.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
Lured by the assurances of the 3rd opposite party a corporate agent/service advisor of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties the complainant deposited Rs. 96,000/- and agreed to join a policy of the opposite parties 1 and 2 by name “SAVE GUARD”. The 3rd opposite party assured that the complainant need to pay Rs. 96,000/- as one time investment and he can withdraw the amount after the expiry of 3 years. At the time of joining the scheme the 3rd opposite party told the complainant that the terms and conditions of the policy would be given by the opposite parties 1 and 2 by post. But they did not do so. After the expiry of 3 years the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party in March 2011 for getting back the amount of Rs. 96,000/- with other benefits assured. They declined the request of the complainant stating that he has not remitted Rs. 96,000/- each in the subsequent years. The complainant had never been in joining such a scheme. At that juncture the 2nd opposite party issued the terms and conditions of the policy and the complainant came across the terms and conditions and made a request on 18-04-2011 to the 2nd opposite party to return the amount, but to no avail. The complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 96,000/- from the opposite parties with interest together with compensation and costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the opposite parties 1 and 2.
The complaint is barred by limitation. Since the cause of action for the complaint has arisen in July 2007 when the policy was issued to the complainant. As required under the IRDA (Protection of Policy Holders’ Intaerest) Regulation 2002, the policy terms and conditions specifically provides free look period of 15 days during which period the policy holder is entitled to receive the policy terms and conditions and request for a cancellation if dissatisfied with the terms and conditions. The complainant is only entitled to the surrender value under the policy on account of risk borne by the opposite party associated with the policy for 3 years. The policy was due from premium for the term of 2008 and the same was communicated to the complainant. Since the complainant failed to pay the amount the status of the policy was changed to early lapse and the same was communicated to the complainant. The opposite party duly replied to the complaint lodged by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint deserves dismissal.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A3 was marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. In spite of service of notice from this Forum the 3rd opposite party failed to respond to the same for her own reasons. Heard the counsel for the contesting parties.
4. The points that emanated for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation ?
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 96,000/-
from the opposite parties with interest?
iii. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and
costs of the proceedings to the complainant?
5. Point No. i. Admittedly the complainant joined the policy of the opposite parties 1 and 2 by name “save guard” with effect from 06-07-2007. The complainant contended that the 3rd opposite party assured that the complainant need to pay one time premium of Rs. 96,000/- and he could withdraw the invested amount after the expiry of 3 years. It is stated that the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party after the expiry of 3 years and only then he came to know that his policy was lapsed. Accordingly he caused a letter to the opposite parties on 18-04-2011 demanding to refund the amount which was rejected by the opposite parties on 19-04-2011. Nothing is forthcoming on the part of the opposite parties to controvert the contentions of the complainant request. In that view of the matter the complainant has approached the Forum well within the limitation period as prescribed in Sec. 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act. So the contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 goes. Therefore the contention of the opposite parties is rejected in this regard.
6. Point No. ii. According to the complainant the opposite parties issued the terms and conditions of the policy only after the expiry of 3 years from the date of joining the policy. The complainant maintains that as and when he received the policy documents he had gone through the same and requested the opposite parties to refund the amount. Even according to the opposite party as per IRDA (Protection of Policy Holders Interest) Regulation 2002 a policy holder is entitled to invoke his right to select or reject the policy during the free look period. Right from the beginning the case of the complainant is that the opposite party failed to provide the terms and conditions to the complainant. Though the opposite party contended that they have forwarded the terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant immediately on receipt of the proposal of the policy, they have not taken any care to substantiate the same in this Forum. At this juncture it is worthwhile to note that the evidence of the complainant remains unrebutted and unchallenged in this Forum. Moreover the opposite parties contend that they have issued notice demanding premium after the expiry of one year from the date of joining the policy by the complainant. Even if true they have miserably failed in providing an iota of evidence before the forum. Another contention of the opposite parties is that they issued separate notice to the complainant before changing the policy to early lapse mode, this contention too has the same fate as the previous one. Both the contentions are rejected. The non providing of the terms and conditions of the policy in time and the denial of the statutory right during the free look period amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Though the contract between the parties become void ab-initio and to set things right the opposite 1 and 2 have to refund the premium amount with interest to the complainant.
7. Point No. iii. The primary grievances of the complainant is sufficiently met by the above directions and so we refrain from ordering compensation and costs of the proceedings.
8. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund Rs. 96,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21st day of December 2013.
Sd/-A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits:
Ext. A1 series : copy of policy documents and
conditions etc.
A(a) : Copy of proposal form
A(b) : Copy of 1st premium receipt
A2 : Copy of letter dt. 18/04/2011
A3 : Copy of letter dt. 19-04-20011.
Opposite party’s Exhibits: : Nil
Depositions:
PW1 : K.P. Jose
