KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CC NO.09/2010
JUDGMENT DATED:26.08.2014
PRESENT :
JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT
SHRI.V.V. JOSE : MEMBER
Mr.Christoph Langwallner,
No.30, Choice Village,
Thrippunithura, : COMPLAINANT
Ernakulam Dist.
(By Adv: M/s Menon & Pai)
Vs.
M/s Birla Sun Life Insurance Corporation,
6th floor, Vaman Centre, Makhwana Road,
Near Marol Naka, Andheri East, : OPPOSITE PARTY
Mumbai-400 059.
(By Adv:Sri. S.K.Premraj)
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI: PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 17 and 18 of the Consumer Protection Act claiming refund of the Insurance Premium paid by him along with damages and costs.
2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:-
Complainant is an Austrian citizen and he is working as Managing Director of M/s Omega Flavour Technology in Kochi. Opposite party is M/s Birla Sun Life Insurance Corporation. M/s Citi Bank Cochin is the authorized agent of the Insurance Company. Through the bank, complainant took an insurance policy on May 13, 2008. The policy consisted of the life coverage and fund coverage for a period of 10 years and Policy Number is 001706250. The policy bearing No.10952261 has fund coverage and life coverage. Complainant paid Rs.15.lakhs to the opposite party as the first premium for the said policy. For the purpose of the said policy the complainant had entrusted the opposite party confidential information including medical records. The policy documents along with enclosures were delivered to him during the 3rd week of June 2008. On examining the same it was found that the enclosures which were sent to him relate to one Kishore Tiwari. Complainant intimated the same to the opposite party. Complainant on June 21, 2008 informed the opposite party to terminate the policy. The said termination was done within the free look period during which complainant can discontinue the policy. But the opposite party did not take any steps for the same. Thus the opposite party has committed unfair trade practice. Therefore complainant claimed refund of Rs.15,00,000/- paid by him as premium amount with interest at 18% per annum from 13.05.2008 with compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
3. Opposite party is M/s Birla Sun Life Insurance Corporation, Mumbai. They in their version contended thus:- Complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The Citi Bank is a necessary party to this application. It is admitted that complainant had issued a Platinum Plus Policy bearing application No.10962261 dated:24.04.2008 for a sum assured of Rs.75,00,000/-, annual premium agreed was Rs.15,00,000/-. The policy bearing No.001706250 was issued on May 13, 2008. Along with the policy documents copies of the said application and instructions were sent to the complainant. But inadvertently the policy document of another customer was sent to the complainant. Complainant had not applied for cancellation of policy within a free look period. On coming to know of the mistake committed the complainant was appraised of the facts by the opposite party. Therefore complaint is to be dismissed.
4. Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on his side. On the side of the opposite party no evidence was adduced.
5. Heard both the counsels.
6. The following points arise for consideration:-
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to claim refund of the premium of the policies Exts.A1 and A2?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation?
Point No.1:-
7. The main contention raised by the opposite party is that complaint is not maintainable as complainant cannot be considered as a consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and that the service rendered by the opposite party cannot be termed as a service as defined under section 2(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act. There is no merit in the above contention. It is clearly provided under section 2(1)(O) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that the service rendered by the insurance company is treated as a service falling within the scope of Section 2(1)(O) of the Consumer Protection Act. That being so, the applicant has to be considered as a consumer as defined under the Act. It follows that the complaint is maintainable.
Point No.2, 3 & 4:-
8. Almost all the facts are admitted in this case. Complainant had taken the insurance policy Exts.A1 and A2 dated, May 13, 2008. The policies had a life coverage and fund coverage for a period of 10 years. Complainant had paid a premium of Rs.15,00,000/- to the opposite party towards the first premium amount of the said policies. The policy and the documents are delivered to him during the 3rd week of June 2008. When the complainant found enclosures sent to him relate to one Mr.Kishore Tiwari, complainant intimated the same to the Citi Bank by Ext.A3 E mail. On June 21, 2008 he sent an E mail to the bank authorities stating that he is no longer interested in continuing the policy. Complainant claimed refund of the premium amount and also compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
9. The case of the opposite party is that it was only an inadvertent mistake on their part in sending the documents of another person to the complainant. Further they contended that complainant had not cancelled the policy within the free look period. We find no substance in the contentions raised by the opposite parties. The complainant received the policy documents in the 3rd week of June 2008. On 21.6.2008 itself complainant had intimated the Citi Bank his desire to discontinue the policy. That being so complainant had chosen to cancel the policy within the free look period. Therefore complainant is entitled to refund of the premium amount paid by him.
10. Next question for consideration is whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Admittedly the opposite party had sent the documents of another assessee to the complainant. The case of the complainant that it was only an inadvertent mistake cannot be accepted. No witness was examined on the side of the opposite party to prove the same. By the above said act of the opposite party complainant has lost his faith in the opposite party. That being so complainant is entitled to compensation. In the present case even after cancellation of the policy by the complainant within the free look period the opposite party did not return the policy amount to the complainant. Therefore we are of the view that complainant is entitled to compensation from the opposite party. Taking into consideration the hardship caused to the complainant and the fact that opposite party did not return the premium amount even after cancellation of the policy we feel that a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- would be reasonable.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part. Opposite party is directed to refund the premium amount of Rs.15,00,000/- paid by the complainant to him. Complainant is also entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. In this complaint complainant is entitled to a cost of Rs.10,000/-. Complainant is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint till realization.
JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI: PRESIDENT
V.V. JOSE : MEMBER
VL.
APPENDIX
COMPLAINANT’S EXHIBITS
Ext.A1 : Insurance policy dated, May 13, 2008
Ext.A2 : -do- -do-
Ext.A3 :True copy of E-mail by Citi Bank.
Ext.A4 : True copy of the e-mail dated: 15th May 2008 sent by M/s Citi Bank to the complainant.
Ext.A5 : Letter from SBT.
COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS
PW1 : Mr.Christoph Langwallner
OPPOSITE PARTY’S EXHIBITS
Nil
OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS
Nil
JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI: PRESIDENT
V.V. JOSE : MEMBER
VL.
