PRESENT

          Complainant by Adv. Shri.Revon A.Nimbalkar  present.                                                           

         Opponent  No. 1 Ex-party

         Opponent No. 2  Absent.        

                                      ORDER

(Per- Mr. S. D. MADAKE, Hon’ble President. )

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for deficiency in service against opposite parties.
2. The complainant is having her bank account with Opponent No.1 at Malad Branch Mumbai. According to her, some of the executives of the bank approached to her and introduced regarding the insurance policy of Opponent No. 2. It is stated that, she was assured that, if she invests Rs.1 lakh per year for three years, she will earn huge profits after making investment in the said scheme.
3. The complainant decided to take policy relying on assurance of Opponent No. 1 bank and after reading the said scheme  opponent No. 2 has issued policy bearing No. 1200800494907 dated 15 February 2008. She has paid three instalments out of her own savings account to Opponent No. 2. She received a letter from opponent No. 2, 13^thSeptember 2010 stating that, due to non-receipt of payment of premium, the policy was  lapsed on 28 February 2009. She received a letter on 17^thJune 2010 stating that policy was lapsed  after three years due to medical unfitness.
4. The complainant stated that,opponent No. 2 refunded an amount of Rs.1 lakh by cheque on account Rem reinvestment postpone and amount of Rs.1 lakh by cheque on account of Rem contract suspense refund. The complainant paid amount relying on promises of opponent No. 1 that, she will get refund with all benefits on surrender of  policy. It is stated that, she made enquiries with concerned officers of opponent No. 2, the officer advised her to surrender the said policy and then the complainant will get only the surrender value. In spite of receiving Rs.1 lakh every year till three year the opponent No. 2 is not ready to repay the premium amount of policy and interests and other benefits when the complainant is lawful customer of the opponent and thereby putting the complainant in great financial loss. 
5. The complainant stated that, vide their legal notice dated 22^ndFebruary 2011 and 15^thSeptember 2011 had called upon opponents to refund the due amount. The opponent have received the said legal notice, but they failed to comply hence present complaint. 
6. Opponent No. 1 served with complaint notice but failed to appear. Hence complaint proceeded Ex-party against opponent No. 1.
7. Opponent No. 2 resisted the complaint by filing written statement and submitted that, complaint is filed after a period of more than three years from the date of issuance of the policy, hence same is barred by law of limitation. The complainant had not made payment towards the premium due for 28^th February 2009.
8. It is alleged that  the opponent party followed all the terms and conditions given in the policy. Subsequently, the complainant made a payment of one lac  only through credit advice dated 19^thNovember 2009 for the policy and submitted dual signature form dated 1^stFebruary 2010. The opposite party depending upon the medical conditions of the complainant had postpone the case of reinstatement for six months. Thereafter, the reinstatement postpone refund cheque for amount of Rs.1 lakh was dispatched to the complainant on 25^th February 2010.
9. The opponent No. 2 submit that,since the policy was not reinstated within two years from the date of lapse, the policy got auto foreclosed on 29^thAugust 2011. The Fund value as on the date of foreclosure was 71,760.01 out of which 6701.07 what is deducted as service tax and the balance amount of Rs.65,058.93 was accounted as surrender penalty, hence no refunds was made for the policy as surrender value.
10. The opposite party 2 stated that  there has been no negligence or deficiency in services whatsoever, on the part of the opposite party in dealing with the concerned policy, hence, complaint  be dismissed.
11. Perused complaint, written statement and documents filed by the parties. Heard both the sides.  
12. After perusal of record it appears that, the complainant has  taken Policy number 1200800494907 from the opponent No. 2 on 15^th February, 2008. The complainant paid Rs.3 lacs to the opponent No. 2 through the opponent No. 1 bank from her saving account. The opponent No. 2,insurance company, lapse the policy of the complainant due to violation of terms and conditions of the policy. As per opponent No. 2, during the first three policy years, complainant failed to pay regular premium within the grace period.
13. As per complainant’s request opponent No. 2 refunded the amount of Rs.2 lacs  to the complainant, but remaining amount did not paid and same was deducted as service tax and the balance was accounted as surrender penalty. The reason putforth by the opponent No. 2 does not appears to be relevant and proper. The complainant is a lady and she paid her valuable lifetime earnings with the opponent No. 2. It is bounden duty of opponent No. 2 to cooperate to the complainant.
14. Secondly, the very object of the said Act is to provide for better protection of the interest of consumers. In the case on hand in spite of continuance of policy, Opponent No. 2 has withheld amount of Rs.1 lac of the complainant pretending on the ground of Service tax deduction and surrender penalty. This action of opponent No. 2 is arbitrary and equivalent to negligence as well as deficiency in service and Insurance company is  liable to refund the said amount.
15. We are of the view that to answer the issue regarding breach or performance of the insurance contract detail evidence is necessary and this can be adjudicated by filing civil suit by either party. The insurance company also takes the view that more than agreed amount has been paid to complainant.
16.  The opponent No. 1 bank has not denied the claim of the complainant by filing written statement. The opponent no I bank assured the complainant stating that after paying three yearly instalments of rupees one lac, she will get certain benefits as mentioned in the complaint.
17. The facts and circumstances on record clearly prove that complainant totally relied on the assurance of Bank and paid amount . The facts on record show that  the complainant even did not receive the amount paid by her relying on representation made by bank. The opponent  no 1 is responsible for  payment of the amount of rupees one lac which complainant is deprived of due to assurance given by the bank at the time of obtaining the policy.
18. We are of the considered view that opponent bank has to pay rupees one lac to complainant as she suffered net loss of rupees one lac only due to assurance of bank that amount is to be paid only for three years.
19. The complainant has proved that there is direct nexus between the assurance made by the bank and loss suffered by the complainant.  hence the bank is  liable to pay compensation to the complainant.
20. In the result, we pass the following order.

                                                  O R D E R

1.       RBT Complaint case No.37/2012   is Partly Allowed

2.         The Opponent No. 1 is directed to pay  amount of rupees one lac  to the complainant at the rate of 9% interest per annum from the date of admission of the complaint   i.e.6^th February 2012  till its realization.

3.       The opponent No. 1 bank is directed to pay cost of Rs.10,000 to the complainant.

4.       Copy of this order be sent to both parties.