BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

Dated this the 24^th of January 2012

PRESENT

        SMT. ASHA SHETTY           :   PRESIDENT

                        SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI       :   MEMBER

                        SRI. ARUN KUMAR K.        :   MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.273/2010

(Admitted on 08.10.2010)

Mr.Norbert Shaba Rego,

So. Late Shaba Antony Rego,

Aged about 55 years,

Residing at 11 142A Hill View,

Behind Mahaveera College,

Pranty Village, Kadangallu,

Moodbidri, Dakshina Kannada.                    …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Smt.Manjula N.A).

          VERSUS

1. Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

One Indiabulls Centre,

Tower 1, 15^th and 16^th Floor,

Jupiter Mill Compound,

841 Senapathi Bapat Marg,

Elphinstone Road,

Mumbai  400 013.

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

2. Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Premium Enclave,

Light House Hill Road,

Mangalore – 575 001.

Rep. by its General Manager.              ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Sri.Bharathraj Hegde).

                                      ***************

ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

1.       This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The Complainant obtained “Dream Endowment Policy” from the Opposite Party.  The Complainant submitted proposal form for Rs.5,00,000/- i.e. a basic sum assured and Rs.95,00,000/- as enhanced sum assured by paying a early premium of Rs.1,65,277/- by paying a Demand Draft.  Before accepting the proposal, the Complainant was made to undergo medical examination by their authorized doctor.  It is stated that the Complainant after satisfying with all the particulars submitted in the proposal form, the Opposite Party accepted the same and issued the policy bearing No.003921711 under client ID No.9636312156 dated 26.04.2010.  The Complainant was surprised by going through the same that instead of issuing the policy what he proposed to get the benefit of rupees one crore, the Opposite Party issued the policy for sum assured of Rs.67,73,000/-.  On receipt of the policy the Complainant informed the mistakes arrived in the policy to the Opposite Party No.2 and requested to rectify the same and issued a fresh policy for rupees one crore.  The Opposite Parties agreed for the same but deliberately delayed to rectify the same without any just cause.  Hence the Complainant issued a Lawyer’s notice dated 12.06.2010 to the Opposite Parties calling upon them to cancel the policy already issued and asked to issue a fresh policy but the Opposite Parties not complied the same, hence the above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to issue a fresh policy for a sum insured Rs.1 Crore (this relief is valued at Rs.1,00,000/- for the purpose of Court Fees) along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and cost of Rs.1,000/-.

2.       Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel filed version stated that the Complainant Mr.Norbert S. Rego had submitted an application dated 04.02.2010 for insurance in his own name under the ‘Dream Endowment Plan’ of Opposite Parties for a sum assured as Rs.5,00,000/- and enhanced sum assured Rs.95,00,000/- with annual premium amount Rs.1,65,227/- for the period of 20 years.  That on April 10, 2010 the Complainant sent consent letter for reduction of enhanced sum assured to Rs.50,00,000/-.  The offer given by the Complainant was revised and accordingly a fresh illustration was generated and the same was accepted by the Complainant wherein the sum assured was Rs.17,73,000/- and enhanced sum assured Rs.50,00,000/- and the premium was kept as Rs.1,65,258/-.  The Complainant signed the above said illustration and now he is making false allegation.  It is also stated that the policy bearing No.003921711 was issued on April 26, 2010.  It is further stated that the policy bond for the said policy was received by the Complainant.  As per the IRDA Regulation, Opposite Parties had apprised the Complainant about the option of Free Look Period of fifteen days through its welcome letter attached to the policy bond.  Under the Free Look option he my return the policy document to the Opposite Parties within fifteen days.  In such cases the Opposite Parties refunds the fund value without deducting any charges but the Complainant failured to avail the free look option.  It is also stated that if the Complainant still does not want to continue the said policy he can place the request for surrender of the policy.  The surrendering the policy the surrender value will be paid as per the terms of the contract and contended that there is no deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.         In support of the complaint, one Mr.Norbert Shaba Rego (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him.  Ex C1 to C6 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure in detail.   One Mr.Puneet Bansall (RW1), Head-Legal & Company Secretary of the Opposite Party No.1 filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him.  Ex R1 and R2 were marked for the Opposite Parties as listed in the annexure in detail. The Complainant as well as Opposite Parties produced notes of arguments.   

4.       In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?

2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

3. What order?

          We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:

                       Point No.(i): Negative.

                       Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.   

Reasons

5.  Point No. (i) to (iii):

In the instant case, the facts which are not in dispute is that, the Complainant by name one Mr.Norbert Shaba Rego submitted a proposal form dated 04.02.2010 for insurance in his own name under “Dream Endowment Policy” of the Opposite Parties for a sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/- and enhanced sum assured Rs.95,00,000/- with annual premium of Rs.1,65,227/- for a period of 20 years as per Ex C1.

Now the point in dispute between the parties before this FORA is that, the Complainant came up with a grievances against the Opposite Party that the Complainant after satisfying with all the particulars submitted in the proposal form, the Opposite Party accepted the same and issued the policy bearing No.003921711 under client ID No.9636312156 dated 26.04.2010. The Complainant surprised by going through the policy, it is stated that the Opposite Party instead of issuing the policy what he proposed to get the benefit of rupees one crore, the Opposite Party issued the policy for sum assured of Rs.67,73,000/-.  On receipt of the policy the Complainant immediately informed the Opposite Party No.2 and requested to rectify the same and issued a fresh policy for rupees one crore.  But the Opposite Parties agreed for the same but deliberately delayed to rectify the same.  Thereafter the Complainant issued a Lawyer’s notice dated 12.06.2010 called upon to cancel the policy already issued for Rs.67,73,000/- and asked to issue a fresh policy but the Opposite Parties failed to do the same, hence came up with this complaint. 

The Opposite Parties on the other hand contended that the Complainant submitted an application for obtaining Dream Endowment Policy of Opposite Party for sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/- and enhanced sum assured Rs.95,00,000/- with annual premium amount Rs.1,65,227/- for a period of 20 years.  On April 10, 2010 the Complainant sent consent letter for reduction of enhanced sum assured to Rs.50,00,000/-.  The offer given by the Complainant was revised as per his counter offer given by the Complainant vide consent letter and accordingly a fresh illustration was generated and the same was accepted by the Complainant wherein the sum assured was Rs.17,73,000/- and enhanced sum assured Rs.50,00,000/- was mentioned and the premium was kept as Rs.1,65,258/- and stated that there is no deficiency. 

The Complainant filed oral evidence by way of affidavit and produced Ex C1 to C6.  Opposite Parties also filed oral evidence by way of affidavit and produced Ex R1 and R2.

On perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, we find that, admittedly the Complainant Mr.Norbert Shaba Rego submitted a proposal form dated 04.02.2010 i.e., the Ex C1 before the Opposite Party.  In the said proposal form the Complainant offered a sum assured Rs.5,00,000/- and enhanced sum assured Rs.95,00,000/- and pay term / years is 20 years and model premium Rs.1,65,225/-.  No doubt, the above proposal was sent to the Opposite Party.  On receipt of the above proposal, the Opposite Party sent a policy bearing No.003921711 dated 26.04.2010, wherein, the premium installments are mentioned as follows:-

On comparing the policy with the proposal form, it shows that the Opposite Party not accepted the insurance plan details proposed by the life insured Mr.Norbert Shaba Rego i.e., the Complainant but the policy was issued for reduction of enhanced sum assured in this case.  Now the point for consideration is that, why the Opposite Party not accepted the proposal form submitted by the Complainant?  In the instant case, the Opposite Parties by producing Ex R2 i.e., the letter dated 10.04.2010 written by the Complainant to the Opposite Party along with the original revised sales illustration contended that the Complainant issued a consent letter for reduction of enhanced sum assured to Rs.50,00,000/-.  The offer given by the Complainant was revised as per consent letter and accordingly fresh illustration was generated and the same was accepted by the Complainant and thereby the enhanced sum was revised.  But the Complainant denied the consent letter by stating that he had not issued any consent letter as stated by the Opposite Party.  However, the Opposite Party produced the consent letter before this FORA i.e., Ex R2 the same has been re-produced herebelow:-

To:

The Branch Manager,

Birla Sunlife Insurance Co.

Mangalore.

From:

          Norbert Shaba Rego,

          Mangalore.

               Sub.: Reducing the enhanced sum assured.

                                     A 34768579.

Dear Sir,

                   This is certify that in my earlier illustration enhanced sum assured is Rs.95,00,000/- as per your requirement my enhanced sum assured is Rs.50,00,000/- please accept this letter and issue my policy as earliest as possible.

          Thanking you,

                                                                   Yours faithfully,

                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                (Norbert Shaba Rego)

Date: 10.04.2010

Place: Mangalore.

The contents of the above said letter we have noticed the signature of the Complainant and at the same time the signature found in the above letter compared with the other signatures of the Complainant available in the records, wherein, the signature found in the consent letter is of the same of the Complainant.  In the above said consent letter the Complainant sought for reducing the enhanced sum assured.  The Opposite Party company by acting upon the above said letter, reduced the sum assured and issued a policy as per Ex C2 i.e., policy dated 26.04.2010.  We do not find any deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party and we further observed that in case if the Complainant is not satisfied with the policy offered by the Opposite Party, the Complainant should have returned the policy immediately to the Opposite Party Company rejecting their enhancement of the sum assured.  But in the instant case, we observed that the Complainant not taken such steps but asked the Opposite Party to act in accordance with the proposal form submitted by the Complainant.  We do not find any deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party Insurance Company.  Hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed.  No order as to costs.

6.       In the result, we pass the following:                          

ORDER

            The complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge or sent to the parties under postal certificate and thereafter the file shall be consigned to the record room.

(Page No.1 to ….. dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 24^th day of January 2012.)

PRESIDENT                    MEMBER                              MEMBER

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – Mr.Norbert Shaba Rego – Complainant.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex C1 – 04.02.2010: Proposal form.

Ex C2 – 26.04.2010: Policy.

Ex C3 – 12.06.2010: Legal notice issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties.

Ex C4 – 21.06.2010: Reply issued by the Opposite Parties.

Ex C5 – 18.08.2010: Reply issued by the Opposite Parties.

Ex C6 -                 : Postal acknowledgement.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1 – Mr.Puneet Bansall, Head-Legal & Company Secretary of the Opposite Party No.1.

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties: 

Ex R1 – Original proposal form submitted by the Complainant with original sales illustration (8 in numbers).

Ex R2 – 10.04.2010: Letter of the Complainant to the Opposite Party along with original revised Sales Illustration ( 5 in numbers).

Dated:24.01.2012                                      PRESIDENT