Counsel for:

The Complainant:Shri S.K.Sahu & Associate Advocate

The Opposite Party 1 : S. Chaudhary & Associate, Advocate

The Opposite Party No.2: Shri S. Sahu & associate,Advocate

Shri A.K.Patra,President:

1.  This captioned consumer Complaint is filed by the complainant named above inter alia alleging   unfair trade practice and deficiency in service for denial of pre –matured withdrawn of an amount of Rs 50,000/- invested with OP No 2 vide money receipt No. WC001433894  dt.30.11.2010 
2. The  Complainant seeks for an order directing the O.Ps to pay the deposited amount of  Rs.50,000/- with interest  and Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony  with  cost of litigation Rs.2,000/- and to pass any other relief/reliefs as deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.
3. Heard .Perused the material available on record. We have our thoughtful consideration on the submission of the both parties.
4. The facts as stated in the complaint and emerged from the document available on the record are that:- the complainant has invested money with the Opposite Parties/Reliance Life Insurance Plan  vide Client Id No.78072731 believing the version of the Op No.1, who is the advisor of O.P No.2/Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd .It is submitted that,the Opp.Party No.1 came to the house of the complainant and advised her to invest money in Reliance Life Insurance Plan for a single premium which will give higher benefit after ten years, so believing the version of the Opp.Party No.1 the complainant has invested Rs.50,000/-with the Reliance Life Insurance vide M.R. No.WC0010433894  on dt.30.11.2010.  The Opp.Party No.1 further assured the complainant that, she can withdraw the said deposited money before the maturity period with a nominal interest including investment amount within five years.  When the complainant was in need of money, she wants to withdraw the said invested amount and approached the Opp.Parties on June, 2018 but the Ops denied to giving the said deposited amount to the complainant saying that, the complainant has invested as yearly premium payable for ten years. It is further submitted that, the complainant has never invested the amount as yearly premium for ten years terms. It is totally beyond the knowledge of the complainant and transfer of money in other scheme is behind back of the complainant, as such the Opp.Parties is negligent and deficient in service towards the complainant. It is contended that , the OPs had never communicated or made any correspondence to the complainant relating to default premium as such the opposite parties have adopted unfair trade practice and that,  the complainant is entitled to receive the entire invested amount along with interest which is not yet release to her .Hence, this complaint.
5. On being notice, the Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed her written version stating there in that, the complainant has invested money in reliance Life Insurance Plan after going through the condition of proposal form and signed on it and after deposit of premium towards the policy, a letter was issued by the OP No.2 that, in case of policy holder is not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, she   can withdraw or return the policy within 15 days of free look period. The complainant is well aware of the terms & conditions of the insurance policy. She failed to deposited the subsequent yearly premium .She has never approach for withdrawal of deposited amount. The transaction was made in the year 2010. This complaint has been filed after lapse of eight years of transaction which is beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the C.P.Act.  It is further submitted by the OP 1 that, under the threat of this case, the complainant has extracted thousands of rupees from the Opposite Party No 1, a series of transaction made with the account of the complainant which is annexed herewith the Written Version as Annexure No-A. It is further submitted that, on the receipt of premium slip delivered to the complainant itself specifically contended the next date of deposited of premium. The policy is already laps and the complainant has preferred this complaint beyond the period of limitation. The Ops have never adopt unfair trade practice and that, there is no cause of action arose for this complainant as such liable to be dismissed with cost.
6. Here, we found no authenticated document filed by the OP 1 there with the written version as stated to be filed vide annexure–A.  Such act  amount to misleading of this Commission .
7. The Opposite Party No.2 appeared and filed their written version admitting the facts that, the OP 2/ Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd has received a duly filled and signed application Form in the year 2010 for the issuance of the insurance policy. It is submitted that, in accordance to Clause 6(2) & 4(1) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Regbulations,2002 every policy document is  sent by the Opposite Party accompanied with a copy of the proposal form signed by the applicant and a forwarding letter  which clearly mentions that, in case policy holder is not satisfied with the features of the terms & conditions of the policies, she/he can withdraw/return the policies within 15 days i.e. under the “Free Look Cancellation Period”. The Opp.Party No .2 had sent the policy documents at the Registered address of the complainant which was received by the complainant where It has been categorically mentioned that, the complainant was required to pay the premium on yearly basis under the policy for 10 years .The answering Ops never informed the complainant that, she was required to pay single premium. It is further stated that, the first premium receipt was issued to the complainant, which categorically state the next premium is due on 30.11.2011 .If the complainant would have opted for single premium policy, after receipt of policy she should have approached the opposite party with her grievance but till date the complainant has never approached the answering OP. The complainant had ample opportunities to go through and understand the terms & conditions of the subject policy including the premium paying terms & frequency. The complainant has never approached the Opp.Party No.2 for cancellation of the policy during the “free look period”, therefore, the policies continued as per the prevailing policy terms and conditions. The complainant is a well educated lady, hence, it is safe to assume that, she had signed the proposal Form and benefit illustration, after reading the documents. If policy holder discontinues payment of premiums the policy will lapse and no benefits will be paid  and no accrued guaranteed loyalty additions, if any, are  payable for policy in  lapsed status and no further guaranteed loyalty additions will be payable. The Opposite Party No.2 has not done anything against the terms and conditions of the policy and the remaining fund value has already been paid out and hence no further amount is payable to the complainant as the policy in question is in  lapsed status . It is further submitted that , the  complainant was required to pay the premium under the policy on yearly basis but the complainant paid only one annual premiums under the policy  and not thereafter. As per the provisions of the policy the complainant was required to pay the premium at least for three consecutive years to be eligible to the surrender value. No benefit will be paid as the alleged policy is in lapse status; the complainant is not entitled for any refund as there is no provision of refund of premium after the expiry of the free look period of 15 days. The complainant is not entitle to get refund of the premium or any compensation or cost and hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost. It is further submitted that, the OP 2 is not privity to any communications between the complainant and the Agent /broker /OP-1. At the time of the filling up the proposal form ,the agent acts as facilitator ,he acts independently to get the consumer to procure insurance policy and no agent can be assumed to have authority from the insurer to promise something beyond the terms and the conditions of the subject policy or to write the answers in the proposal form .If an agent nevertheless does that ,he becomes merely the amanuensis of the insured ,and his knowledge of the untrue or inaccurate statement contended in the proposal form does not become the knowledge of the insurer .
8. Heard, the complainant. Perused the material on record. We have our thoughtful consideration to the submission of the learned counsel of both the complainant and Ops present.
9. As per Sec. 38(6) of C.P. Act 2019 every complaint shall be heard by the District Commission on the basis of affidavit & documentary evidence placed on record; as such it casts an obligation on the District Commission to decide the complaint on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the service provider/seller, irrespective of whether the service provider/seller adduced evidence or not. The decision of the District Commission has to be based on evidence relied upon by the complainant. The onus thus is on the complainant making allegation
10. To substantiate their respective contention, both the complainant and OP 2(two) lead their evidence on affidavit .The averment of their evidence affidavit is corroborating with their respective pleadings are   taken in to consideration. No evidence on affidavit as prescribed under C.P Act is filed by the OP 1 to substantiate her contention. We found no authenticated document filed there with the written version of OP 1 as stated to be filed as annexure –A. So also, the OP 2 has not filed a single document for consideration & marking exhibited though the deponent namely Animesh Mishra , seiner Manager –legal has stated in his affidavit evidence that:- copy of the Proposal Form is  exhibited as Exhibited –OP1/A and copy of the terms & condition with benefit illustration is exhibited as exhibited –OP 1/B .Such act of OP 2 amountS to mislead this Commission.
11. It is not disputed that, the complainant has deposited Rs 50,000/- with the Op 2 (two) vide money receipt No. WCOO10433894 dt. 30/11/2010 placed there on the record. It is also not disputed that, the OP 1 (one)/Binata Nayak is stood as the advisor of Op 2/Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd ,vide ode No .21207228 . We found nothing contend there in the said money receipt that, the next date for payment of premium is 30/11/2011 as such  contention of the OPs that, “first premium receipt was issued to the complainant, which categorically stated the next premium is due on 30.11.2011” is not admissible rather reject.
12. No cogent evidence is placed on record to hold that, the Opp.Party No;.2  had ever sent the policy documents at the Registered address of the complainant & it was dully received by the complainant to avail  “Free Look Cancellation Period”
13. No scrap of paper is placed on record to hold that:- the complainant was required to pay the premium on yearly basis under the policy for 10(ten) years and that, the complainant has ever agreed to pay as such for 10(ten) years to avail  benefits & accrued guaranteed loyalty additions, if any, payable under the  policy .There is nothing placed on record that, the complainant has ever been informed about the lapse status of the policy to protect the interest of the consumer/complainant so that, she would have an opportunity for revival the policy.
14. Here in this case , neither the OP 1(one) has proved her contention that, under the threat of this case, the complainant has extracted thousands of rupees nor the Op 2 has adduced any evidence to hold that the alleged fund value under money receipt No. WCOO10433894 dt. 30/11/2010 has ever been paid out to the complainant. Rather, the complainant proved her contention on affidavit that, she has deposited Rs 50,000/- with the OP 2(two) believing the assurance given by the OP1/the advisor of the OP 2. She approached the Opposite Party for payment of deposited amount with interest in the month of June 2018 but the Opposite Party did not listen to the claim of the complainant and refused to make payment as such cause of action continue to present this complaint and it is presented on 27.12.2018 before this Commission is found in time, well within the jurisdiction of this commission.
15.  We may relied upon the judgment  reported in CCC 2005 page No. 192 (SS) where  the Hon’ble State CDR Commission, Maharashtra  observed “ Consumer Protection Act,1986- Section 2(1)(O)- service-Co-operative society-service rendered by a  Credit Society in accepting deposits from the investors falls within definition of service in Section 2(1)(o) of the C.P.Act,1986.
16. In the given facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that,  the retention of deposited  amount  by the Opposite Party  No 2(two) for  such a long time & non  Cooperation of OP 1 (one) amounted to  deficiency in service as defined  U/S Sec.2(11)(g) of C.P Act 1986 as well as  Section 2(11) of new C.P Act 2019. “Deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the  quality , nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance  of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”. And includes- (i) any action negligence of omission or commission by such person which cause loss or injury to the consumer (ii) deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer;
17. The act of withholding payment by the Opposite Party No 2(two) is found to be not genuine. It is arbitrary and oppressive and is gross deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence, the complainant is entitled to withdraw the said deposited amount of Rs.50,000/- vide money receipt No. WCOO10433894 dt. 30/11/2010 and deserves to be compensated for financial loss & mental agony suffered. In our view the interest of justice would met if this Commission award accrued interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filling of this complaint till its realization.
18. In view of the above discussion and referring citations we allow the above complaint petition in part and to meet the ends of justice, the following order is passed.                                                ORDER

            This complaint petition is allowed in part   against the Opposite Parties on contest with the following direction :- (i). The Opposite Party No 2(two) is hereby directed to pay the deposited amount of Rs.50,000/- vide M.R. No.WC0010433894  on dt.30.11.2010.  with interest  @ 9% per annum from 27.12.2018 i.e the date of filling of this complaint, till its realization .The Op No 1(one) is to take follow up action to ensure release of  the said  amount deposited with the OP 2(two). Since we award the interest on the amount due, no further compensation is awarded inter alia to pay Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses.(ii) It is further directed to comply the aforesaid order within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order falling which the OPs shall be liable to pay Rs.500/-(five) each per day as compensation to the complainant till compliance of this order and the C.E.O of the Op 2(two) as well as the Op No1(one) shall be liable to be prosecuted under penal provision of Section 72 of C.P. Act 2019 on his/her own cost. The pending application if any is also stands disposed off accordingly.

Dictated & corrected by me.

I agree.

          Pronounced in open forum today on this 20^th June  2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission .The pending application if any is also stands disposed off accordingly.

          The judgment be uploaded forthwith in the website of the Commission .Free copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download the same from the Confonet to treat the same as copy of the order receipt from this Commission. Order accordingly.