THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C. 258/2014
Dated this the 20th day of October 2018.
(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB. Hon’ble : President)
Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A : Member
Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB : Member
ORDER
Present: Smt.Beena Joseph, member:
This petition was filed on 15.05.2014 alleging deficiency of service and illegal trade practice adopted by opposite party.
The case of the complainant is that, he had joined an Insurance policy of opposite party on 26.02.2008 for a period of 20 years. The annual premium was Rs.12,000/- which has continuously to be paid for 3 years it can be withdrawn. Complainant herein paid 3 year premium thereafter he could not remit premium installments later on 05.05.14 he withdrawn the amount and he received only Rs.27,157.27 paisa as per the offer of the insurance, petitioner would have given Rs.36,000/- plus interest. The opposite party insurance company stated that, fall in the share market is the reason for reduction of the amount. Therefore the petitioner sustained a loss of Rs.50,000/- hence he pray for a compensation and cost. Hence this complaint.
Notice issued to both parties, both of them appeared opposite party filed version stating the following contentions.
Opposite party disputed the allegations in the petition. They submit that, the complaint is not sustainable for the reason that there is no deficiency as defined in the act and complainant cannot be a consumer as per the provisions of the Act. Complainant has no local standi to file this complaint for the reason that he has already surrendered the policy as on 05.05.14 and received the amount Rs.27,184.6 paisa as on 08.05.2014. The petitioner has purchased 1266.54 unit which having a face value of Rs.21.46 which amounts to Rs.27,184.6 paisa. That amount has paid to the petitioner. This is an Insurance policy based on contract as per the Insurance Act. And policy holder receives the copy of the policy where in the complainant has made a declaration that he has read the application and the answers and the other details etc. So policy holder and Company are bound by the terms and condition of the insurance policy issued by the company. The complainant had availed the policy after abiding the terms and conditions of the policy. So the present complaint is Malicious and baseless one. Now the complainant has no relationship existing within the company and he will not come under the ambit of Consumer. The complainant had paid only 3 years premium amounts to Rs.12,000/- annually. Now the complainant come before the Forum by suppressing the real and material facts. And this petition is barred by limitation. The alleged payment of premium was in the year 2008 towards availing the policy and if there is any deficiency in the service on the part of opposite party. The complainant ought to have approached the court on or before March 2010. That is within two years of alleged deficiency. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed. The policy availed by the complainant is unit linked policy and as per the terms of policy and provisions of insurance Law in regard to the unit linked policy, the risk of investment in the market under the policy has to be borne by the policy holder as per the policy conditions. Further the premium amount is considered for taking risk of life of the insured and the premium so paid takes risk for the period for which the premium has been paid. And Company has covered the risk of the complainant till the date of surrender of the policy. Hence the complainant’s prayer for payment of balance of premium amount with compensation is unsustainable. Premium is appropriated for the period of risk no right or equity arises in favour of the insured for seeking refund of the premium amount.
The averment in the petition are partly true to the extent that opposite party has paid a sum of Rs.27,157/- to the petitioner and rest of the averments are denied. As per the terms and conditions of policy this opposite party is not liable to repay the balance amount paid by the complainant. Complainant is misusing the process of law, complainant has given an option of 15 days free look period from the date of receipt of policy as per the IRDA rules and regulations. However complainant has not raised any grievance before the opposite party within 15 days of the receipt of the policy. The policy holder has the option to review the terms and conditions and return the policy if disagrees with the conditions. The complainant is not entitled for any relief claimed in the petition. Complainant has suppressed material facts to make wrongful gains from the opposite party. In this situation opposite party has not committed any deficiency of service and he is not entitled to get any compensation. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Points to be considered
- Is there any service deficiency or illegal trade practice adopted by opposite party?
- If yes, what are the reliefs?
The complainant filed affidavit and Exts.A1 to A5 marked. Opposite party has not adduced any evidence. Ext.A1 is the letter of opposite party, Ext.A2 & A3 are the receipt of premium payments, and Ext.A4 is the surrender request and acknowledgment. Ext.A5 is the paper cutting.
These points are interlinked and it can be considered together for the sake of convenience. It is seen admitted that petitioner had obtained a policy Number 00886318155 from the opposite party, which a unit linked policy. This policy has got an annual premium of Rs.12,000/-, the tenure of the policy is 15 years. The petitioner had remitted 1st premium on 26.02.2008 as per Ext.A2. Thereafter he had remitted 2 more instalments in the year 2009 & 2010. Thereafter the petitioner could not make payments towards the policy. Later on 05.05.14 the petitioner herein surrender the policy and received an amount of Rs.27,154.21 paisa. Regarding these aspects there was no dispute by either parties. The complainant after receiving the amount stated that he had deposited Rs.36000/- with the opposite party and in return he received on Rs.27,157/-. So there is a shortage of Rs.8,843/-. This reduction of amount amounts to illegal trade practice and service deficiency and he sustained loss.
Considering this aspect, it is found that the above insurance policy is a unit linked policy which having risk bearing of market fluctuation as per the policy conditions. Meanwhile the life of the petitioner is insured by the opposite party. The petitioner had admitted that, there was omission on his part to make payments regularly to the policy after 3 years. And he claimed return of the policy amount in the year 2014. At that time the value of the unit was Rs.21.46 per unit. The petitioner altogether having 1266.54 units in his credit. So he is entitled to get an amount of Rs.27,184/- which had been duly paid by the opposite party. Moreover the petitioner had admitted the terms and conditions of the policy. The Ext.A1 shows the conditions of the policy wherein it has been stated that the opposite party has every right to cut a certain percentage of premium prior to the return or surrender of policy and they are entitled to get fundamental charge. In this regard there was no deduction effected by the opposite party from the amount deposited by the complainant.
Moreover the complainant had joined the above policy in order to obtain profit and life coverage. This is a unit linked policy which depends upon the fluctuation of the market and the petitioner has no case that the face value of the unit is more that 21.46 at the time of surrender. Hence we don’t found any kind of service deficiency or illegal trade practice on the part of opposite parties. We found that there is no merit in the above case and it is liable to be dismissed.
In the result the above petition is dismissed without cost.
Dated this 20th day of October 2018.
Date of filing: 15.05.2014.
SD/-MEMBER SD/- PRESIENT SD/- MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1. Copy of letter issued by the opposite party dtd.27.02.2008.
A2. Receipt of premium payment dtd.23.03.2010.
A3. Receipt of premium payment dtd.24.03.2009
A4. Surrender request and acknowledgment
A5 Paper cuttings.
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
Nil
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
