DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
Consumer Complaint No 245 of 2014
Date of filing: 09.12.2014 Date of disposal: 19.8.2015
Complainant: Sri Subrata Majila, S/o. Late Narayan Chandra Majila, Village: Kankuria, Post Office: Sahajpur, Police Station: Kalna, District: Burdwan, West Bengal, PIN – 713 405.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. The Branch Manager, Axis Bank Ltd., Kalna Branch, PS: Kalna, Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 409.
2. The Managing Director & C.E.O., Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Max House, 3rd Floor, 1 Dr. Jha Marg, Okhla, New Delhi, 110 020, India.
3. The Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd., having its Regional Office at 15A, Hemanta Basu Sarani, 3rd Floor, Continental Chember, Kolkata – 700 001.
Present: Hon’ble President: Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Silpi Majumder.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Biswanath Nag.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1: Ld. Advocate, Kamal Kumar Dutta.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 2&3: Ld. Advocate, Debdas Rudra.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the Ops as the OP-1&2 did not pay the fund value along with interest in respect of the insurance policy issued by them.
The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that being a poor farmer he obtained an agricultural loan from the OP-1 in 2010 and for this purpose he had complied with all the formalities of the said Bank. An employee of the Loan Section of the said Bank, namely, Sudiptababu and the Operation Manager Sri Rajkumar Maitra has forcefully made one policy of Max New York Life Insurance policy in his name being no. 786366591. The complainant deposited two premiums of Rs. 25,000=00 each, but after getting the policy document it was detected, out of first premium amount only Rs. 17,000=00 was deposited as the rest amount was for the commission of the agents, but in case of second premium agent commission was not detected. In the year 2013 the Bank authority told the complainant to repay the loan amount and the complainant told the Bank authority to withdraw the policy money and deposit the same or adjust with the loan amount but the Bank authority did not pay heed to this effect and subsequently paid the entire dues of the Bank loan along with interest. On 2nd September the complainant told the Operation Manager of the OP-1 for withdrawal of the policy money but the Manager of the Axis Bank told him to meet with one Kalyanbabu and when the complainant contact with such person, he advised for surrender of the policy before the office of Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. at Kolkata region. Accordingly the complainant surrendered the policy before the Insurance Company and at the time of surrendering neither the OP-1 nor the OP-2 informed the complainant about the fund value of the said policy, which amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops. The complainant having little knowledge about the modern world could not resist the forceful attitude of the OP-1 when he was told that until and unless he obtained one policy, loan could not be sanctioned. Therefore the OP-1 is responsible for such misdeeds due to creation of such unlawful force. Therefore the complainant is now entitled to get Rs. 27,001.32 along with statutory interest for the period from 07.9.2010 to 17.9.2014. The complainant requested the authority of OP-1 on several occasions to look into the matter earnestly but it did not made any single response to his request. On 05.11.2014 an Advocate’s notice was sent and the same was duly served upon the OP but inspite of this no fruitful result has been yielded till filing of this complaint which according to the complainant is an example of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on behalf of the Ops. Due to such inaction and attitude of the Ops the complainant had to suffer great mental pain, agony and harassment and he having no other alternative for redressal of his grievance he has filed this complaint before this ld. Forum under compelling circumstances praying for direction upon the Ops for making payment of Rs. 27, 0001.32 along with statutory interest to him, Rs. 2, 00,000=00 as compensation due to mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 20,000=00.
The petition of complaint has been contested by OP-1 by filing written version wherein it is stated that this Bank is the third largest private Bank in India which holds reputation and used to deal with the customers satisfactorily. Moreover, this OP-1 is providing banking transaction and most of the customers can rely upon the service of this Bank. The OP-2 – Insurance Company has signed a corporate agency relationship with this Bank and provides customized life insurance solution to customers via the Bank’s vast network. It is submitted by the OP-1 that the complainant came to this OP for obtaining an agricultural loan in the year 2010. After observing all formalities the loan was sanctioned and disbursed. Thereafter the complainant failed to repay the due EMI towards loan account. This OP requested the complainant on several occasion for making repayment of the loan regularly as per agreement but ultimately the complainant paid the remaining of the loan amount in the year 2013. Be it mentioned that when the complainant came to this Bank the OP-2 offered him to obtain a life insurance policy from it and the complainant being agreed obtained the same and accordingly the policy was issued in his favour. As per direction of the OP-2 the complainant paid two premiums for Rs. 25,000=00 each on 07.9.2010 & 17.9.2014 respectively. Therefore there was no relation by and between the OP-1 and the OP-2 in connection of any banking transaction. But the complainant with mal-intention and ill motive has impleaded the OP-1 as a party in this proceeding just to make harassment. Moreover, not a single document has been filed by the complainant in this case from where it would be evident that his OP had created force for taking out a policy from the OP-2. There is also no single document filed by the complainant which reveals the dispute by and the between the complainant and this OP regarding the transaction of payment of the loan as availed of. But though the complainant did not pay the due EMI regularly this OP did not take any step against the complainant. As this complaint has been filed by the complainant in connection of the insurance policy where there is no role of the OP-1 and for this reason this complaint should be dismissed against the OP-1 with cost. The OP-1 is not duty bound to explain the complainant about the fund value of the policy, issued by the OP-2. Therefore it is clear that the complainant did not come before this ld. Forum with clean hands. So this complaint is not at all tenable against this OP under the C.P. Act. As there was no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on behalf of the OP-1, prayer has made by this OP for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.
The petition of complaint has been contested by the OP-2&3 by filing conjoint written version wherein it is stated that the Ops are always bound by the terms and the conditions of the policy. It is noted that the only grievance of the complainant against these Ops is that at the time of surrendering the policy the fund value was not informed to him. Apart from this the complainant has no grievance in any other respect along with the features of the policy issued to him. Therefore, the allegation as made out in the complaint is matter of afterthought. It is submitted by the Ops that the complainant was at liberty and under obligation to go through the terms and the conditions of the policy upon receipt of the same, but he did not raise any complaint regarding the policy either within the freelook period of 15 days or within any reasonable time thereafter. Therefore, the contract of insurance has reached in its finality. If the complainant was not keen on buying the policy he could have sought for cancellation within 15 days but the complainant had failed to do so. During time of taking of the policy the complainant having go through the terms and the conditions of the same obtained the policy. Therefore the complainant had reasonable time not to accept the policy but without doing so the complainant showed his willingness to surrender the policy. It is further submitted by the Ops that as the complainant was agreed to surrender the policy, these Ops following the terms and the conditions of the policy and as per the market value have sent the cheque to the tune of Rs. 22,998.68 paisa to the complainant, which has been duly received by him but thereafter being aggrieved with the said amount this complaint has been filed by him stating that the amount was not sufficient and he is entitled to get the balance amount along with interest from the Ops. According to the Ops as the policy was a unit linked policy, the complainant is entitled to get the amount as per the market price deducting the surrender charge therefrom and the Ops have done the same in to to. Therefore there was no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on behalf of the Ops and for this reason the complainant is not entitled to get any amount as sought for in the complaint. Prayer has been made by these Ops for dismissal of this complaint with cost.
The complainant has filed evidence on affidavit along with several documents in support of his contention. OP-2&3 have also filed evidence on affidavit along with documents. Be it mentioned written version filed by the OP-1 is on affidavit.
We have carefully perused the records, documents as available and heard argument at length advanced by the ld. Counsel for the parties. It is seen by us that admittedly the complainant obtained one agricultural loan from the OP-1 in 2010, the same was sanctioned and disbursed, entire loan amount has been repaid along with interest as per agreement by the complainant, the complainant obtained one unit linked policy from the OP-2&3, two premiums has been paid by the complainant, the amount of each premium was for Rs. 25,000=00, the complainant applied for surrendering of the said unit linked policy, the same was surrendered, after deduction of the surrender charge as per market price entire policy amount has been paid by the Insurance Company to the complainant.
The allegation of the complainant is that though he paid Rs. 50,000=00 in total on the account of two premiums, but at the time of surrendering the policy the Insurance Company has paid a very lower amount to the tune of Rs. 22,998.68 paisa and therefore he is also entitled to get the balance amount of Rs. 27,001.32 paisa along with interest for a quite considerable period. Further allegation of the complainant is that while he approached before the OP-1 for agricultural loan he was told by the OP-1 that until and unless he obtained an insurance policy from the OP-2&3 through the OP-1 the loan could not be sanctioned. According to the complainant such action of the OP-1 along with OP-2&3 can easily be termed as deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice because the Bank has no authority to create pressure upon any customer to purchase an insurance policy at the time of seeking any loan therefrom.
It is seen by us that there is no iota of evidence adduced by the complainant that at the time of sanctioning of the loan along with disbursement, the OP-1 has created illegal pressure on him for taking an insurance policy. No document is produced to prove his allegation that he was told by the OP-1 that until and unless insurance policy is obtained, loan could not be sanctioned, therefore the wild allegation as alleged by the complainant does not stand. Moreover, it is seen by us that the loan was sanctioned in the month of March, 2010 but the policy obtained by the complainant from the OP-2&3 in the month of August, 2010. Not only that the complainant repaid the entire loan amount along with interest much before his prayer for surrender of the insurance policy. So there is no nexus by and between the sanctioning of the loan and the insurance policy.
Now, we turn up our eyes to the allegation as to whether the OP-2 & 3 has refunded proper amount in respect of the surrender of insurance policy to the complainant or not. It is seen by us that in the terms and the conditions of the insurance policy it was mentioned that the complainant was at liberty to surrender the policy within free look period i.e. 15 days from the date of receipt of the said policy document by him. But the complainant continued the policy for two years and paid two premiums @Rs. 25,000=00 each but one find morning the complainant showed his willingness for surrender of the said insurance policy. In the terms and the conditions it has also been mentioned that in respect of surrender of the policy prior to its maturity, the insurer is entitled to deduct the surrender charge from the net amount as payable. Not only that the total refund of money will be based on the prevalent market price. Knowing the said terms and conditions fully well the complainant had prayed for surrender of the policy. We have noticed that the OP-2&3 have acted as per his willingness and remit the total surrender value in respect of the unit linked policy to the complainant and the same has been duly received by him. It is seen by us that on 17.9.2014 the unit value was at @ Rs. 23.80 paisa and Rs. 30.48 paisa, the transacted number of units were 528.32 and 587.75. Surrender charge was deducted for Rs. 7,500=00 and the complainant received Rs. 22,998.68 paisa towards total surrender value.
Though the complainant has stated that he told the OP-1 to adjust the surrender value of the insurance policy with the loan amount, but the OP-1 did not do the same. It is seen by us that this statement of the complainant does not corroborate with the documentary evidence as adduced by him because it is seen by us that much prior of his prayer for surrender of the insurance policy, he repaid the entire loan amount to the OP-1 along with interest, hence adjustment does not arise at all.
The complainant has claimed as he paid Rs. 50,000=00 in total towards two premiums for the said policy, hence he is entitled to get refund of the balance amount i.e. Rs. 27,001.32 paisa along with interest from the Ops. In this respect we are to say that neither the complainant nor the OP-2&3 can travel beyond the terms and the condition of the said policy as the same has been accepted by the complainant by putting his endorsement. Therefore, as the unit linked policy solely based on the market price and the OP-2&3 have remit the surrender value of the policy based on the then market price, such action of the OP-2&3 do not reveal any deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. It has been earlier mentioned that the complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service along with unfair trade practice of the Ops by producing cogent document in support of his contention. Therefore, we are of the view that there was no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice of the OP-1, 2 & 3 in this case. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as sought for.
Going by the foregoing discussion, hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is dismissed on contest. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the complaint there is no order as to costs.
Let a plain copy of this final order/judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
