In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.180/2010
1) Mr. Biswanath Auddy,
11, Durga Pithiri Lane,
Bowbazar, Kolkata-12. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Birla Sunlite Insurance Co. Ltd.,
JK Millennium Centre, 2nd Floor, Block-A,
46D, J.L. Nehru road, P.S. Park Street, Kolkata-71.
2) Mr. Amit Khjaitan & Mrs. Ajita Khaitan,
13B, Canning Street, 3rd Floor,
Room No.316, Kolkata-1. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 24 Dated 20-03-2013.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant had approached o.p. no.2 for a policy being no.000581791 dt.21.2.06 of amount for Rs.25,000/-. Owing to sudden requirement for cash complain ant after running the policy for 2 years 4 months 13 days had to surrendered the policy on 7.7.08 vide surrender application dt.7.7.08 claiming refund for the sum deposited to o.p. no.1 with interest. Complainant received a letter dt.11.7.08 from o.p. no.1 acknowledging the receipt of the communication on 8.7.08.
O.p. had informed complainant in the letter dt.11.7.08 that the signature on the discharged form does not match with the signature in their record for which they were unable to proceed with the request for cancellation of the policy of complainant. In letter from o.p. dt.11.7.08 they enclosed a specimen signature form along with the bankers certificate requesting to sent original policy documents along with fresh discharge form to be duly signed by complainant bearing the revenue stamp and witness details and signature change form.
On 24.3.09 an e-mail message was sent by complainant about non receipt of cheque from o.p. after the surrender of policy duly received in their acknowledgement slip dt.7.7.08.
On 31.3.09 complainant received a reply from the customers’ service confirming that discharge form had been received by o.p. but the same could not be processed due to mismatch of signature and stating the same was returned to complainant in his mailing address on 25.6.08 and o.p. had not returned the original policy already submitted with the discharge form and had not made a whisper about it.
Being intense necessity for money complainant approached the concerned authorities of o.p. no.1 and they advised to give an indemnity bond stating that it was the only way out for fast disbursal of payment otherwise it will take months.
Complainant again complied with the same and like the earlier process again sent a letter dt.14.10.09 accepting the receipt of the scheme as in para 17 and the new signature was registered in their record.
Complainant had executed the policy no.000581791 dt.24.2.06 for a term of 10 years and surrender application was sent on 7.7.08. So the investment had been for 2 years 4 months and 13 days till the date of application.
O.p. is denying the legitimate disbursement demanding those documents which complainant had already remitted rendering him helpless. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.p. no.1 had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. O.p. no.2 did not contest the case by filing w/v and matter was heard ex parte against o.p. no.2. Ld. Lawyer of o.p. no.1 in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Decision with reasons:
