J U D G M E N T.
In the matter of an application filed by the Complainant alleging deficiency in service by the opposite parties.
Brief facts of the case is that :-
The petitioner is an account holder of Axis Bank Ltd., Nuapada (O.P. No. 1) having account No. 81101010009348 from 2009. On request of O.P. No. 1, the petitioner agreed and started Life Insurance Policy with Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd., as O.P. No. 1 assured for higher financial benefit in addition to four year premium paying term with six year policy maturity and accordingly O.P. No. 1 being the agent of the Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. taken the signature of the petitioner in several papers on 29.01.2013 and taken Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only as first premium on demand draft by debiting from the account of petitioner. The petitioner is an illiterate cultivator and he know only his signature in Hindi and he does not know reading and writing in any other language. After one and half month the petitioner had gone to the Branch of Axis Bank (O.P. No.1) Nuapada to enquire about the policy document and on the very day O.P. No.1 gave the policy documents to the complainant in the Branch and the complainant came to their house and handed over the policy documents to his son to verify the plan and benefit. Thereafter the complainant knew that it is a Max Life Gain Plus 20 participating plan and in the next day again the complainant came to the O.P. No. 1 to return policy as he is not satisfied the terms and conditions of the policy but O.P. No.1 denied to accept the same. Though there is condition in the policy that if the policy holder will not satisfied the terms and condition of the policy, he can cancel the policy within free look period and the said amount be refunded to the policy holder. But without any option the complainant continued the above policy and premium amount of Rs. 29,582/- dated 20.02.2014 and Rs.29,582.32 dated 09.02.2015 and Rs. 29,695.15 on 06.02.2016 respectively deducted from the account of the petitioner and the total amount of Rs. 1,18,859.47 has been paid towards the total premium of the policy to the O.P. No. 2 through the O.P. No. 1. In the month of May 2016, the petitioner requested the O.P. No. 1 for withdraw his insurance money for marriage of his daughter and again he requested in the month of August 2016 and thereafter O.P. No. 1 took steps for surrender of policy of the petitioner and on 12.09.2016 a sum of Rs. 50,559.89 has been credited in the account of the petitioner through NEFT from the Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. On 13.9.2016 O.P. No. 1 informed the petitioner regarding surrender value of Rs. 50,559.89, but the petitioner protested the same but O.P. No. 1 denied to give any higher amount. The Insurance policy No. 877463802, base policy – Max Life, life gain plus 20, type of policy – participating. As the O.Ps are service provider to the life insured (i.e. the petitioner) and receiving the entire premium money are liable to return the entire amount with interest and other benefits to the petitioner. The cause of action arose on 12.9.2016 when the petitioner came to know about the deposit money of Rs. 50,559.89 in his account by the O.Ps. The petitioner filed xerox copies of documents i.e. Insurance premium receipts dated 31.01.2013, 20.02.2014, 05.3.2015, 06.02.2016, Xerox copy of Passbook of petitioner issued by Axis Bank, Nuapada, I.R.D.A. Guideline and Voter Identity Card in support of their claim and also he claim for relief’s as prayed for.
Being noticed, the O.P. No. 1 appeared through their Advocate and filed a written version and stated that he adopts the written version filed by the principal O.P. i.e. Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and O.P. No. 1 has no role while opening the policy by the petitioner with Max Life Insurance and he never request the petitioner for the said policy and his only role was to receive the deposit since the petitioner had an account in the branch so he is not liable in this case. He has also not file any document in this case.
O.P. No. 2 to 6 appeared through their Advocate and filed a written version and stated that the petitioner completely understand the terms and conditions of the policy and thereafter issued policy bearing No. 877463802 with effect date of coverage as 29.1.2013 to the petitioner for a premium paying term of 6 years and coverage term of 20 years and the policy terms and conditions were sent to the petitioner on 02.02.2013 and after paying the premium for 4 (four) years, the petitioner requested for surrender of the policy on 28.08.2016 due to financial problems and thereafter the O.Ps paid the surrender value of Rs. 50,559.89 and was intimated to the petitioner through a letter on 09.09.216 and the claim of petitioner in this case is denied as false and unsustainable and they have filed xerox copies of documents i.e. proposal form and policy documents as Annexure-1, and the copy of surrender request form as Annxure-2 and a copy of letter dated 09.09.2016 as Annexure-3 in support of their claim.
In the above pleadings, the following issues are framed and considered:-
- Whether the Petitioner is a consumer or not ?
- Whether the petition is maintainable in the eye of law ?
- Whether the Forum has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon and there is cause of action ?
- Whether any negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?
- To what relief the petitioner is entitled to ?
ISSUE No. I to IV.
Since the issues are very much linked up with each other, those are taken up for jointly discussion and findings.
On the first stage, the question of status of a consumer should be cleared. The petitioner is an account holder of Axis Bank Ltd., Nuapada (O.P. No.1) having Account No. 81101010009348 from 2009. As a Agent of the Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd., O.P. No. 1 convinced the petitioner to start a Life Insurance Policy with Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd., and assured him for higher financial benefit in addition to four year premium paying term with six years policy maturity and accordingly the petitioner started the said policy and after completion of all documentary formalities by the petitioner, O.P. No. 1 taken the signature of the petitioner and make a Demand Draft of Rs. 30,000.00 by debiting the said amount from the account of the petitioner on 29.1.2013 towards first premium and also an amount of Rs. 29,582/-, Rs. 29,582.32, and Rs. 29,695.15 in total amount of Rs. 1,18,859.47 have been deducted from the account of the petitioner in different dates i.e. 20.02.2014, 09.02.2015 & 06.02.2016 by the O.P. No.1 and he paid to O.P. No. 2 and accordingly the petitioner completed his installment as premium for the said policy. As per Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , Section 2 (d)(ii) explain consumer means any person “ who hires’ or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly promised or any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than commercial purpose” so the status of consumer cannot be deniable and thereby the maintainability.
Further it is seen that the complainant is a resident of village – Pawartola, P.S./Dist: -Nuapada as well as the office of O.P. No. 1 at Nuapada, Dist:- Nuapada, so the complaint is within the jurisdiction of this Forum.
On perusal of records, we perceived that the petitioner is an illiterate person and he know his signature in Hindi only and he does not know reading and writing in any other language. In another point is that the petitioner was not filling the Proposal Form or any other Form as he is illiterate person and as such O.P. No. 1 took signature of petitioner in some blank printed papers and filled up the same in their own motion.
After received the policy bond from O.P. No. 1, the complainant rushed to their house and told his son to read and verify the benefit of plan and thereafter the complainant knew the plan and dissatisfied on it and on the next day he again rushed to the O.P. No. 1 to return the policy as he was not satisfy the terms and conditions of the policy and he complained before the O.P. No.1, but O.P. No. 1 denied to accept the same. Such uncongenial situation and without any option the petitioner continued the same policy and completed four year premium as mentioned above.
In another vital point is that the O.Ps have not file any acknowledgement or any supporting documents with particular date that the said policy bond has been received by the complainant in particular date and he has not raised any objection within the stipulated period of free look of the said policy. Simply the O.Ps have stated in their written version that the policy bond delivered to complainant on 13.02.2013 through first flight. So it is the duty of the O.Ps and burden lies on them to prove the same on the strength of relevant documents but they failed to do the same.
So the plea of the O.Ps is unbelievable due to want of the above said documents.
Further it is asserted that the O.Ps have not given any opportunity and proper service to the complainant on the point of “ Free look period” on the said policy as the complainant was unwilling and protested on it. So it is clear crystal that the O.Ps were playing dilatory tactics with the complainant to continue the said policy.
On the other hand, it is seen that the petitioner requested the O.P. No. 1 in the month of May 2016 and again on August 2016 to withdraw his insurance money for marriage of his daughter, basing on that, lastly O.P. No. 1 surrendered the policy of the petitioner on 12.09.2016 and a sum of Rs. 50,559.89 has been credited to the account of the petitioner through NEFT from the Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd., and he informed the petitioner for the same on 13.09.2016 for which the petitioner protested the same before O.P. No. 1 but he denied to give any higher amount on the said policy.
In another factual aspect is that the policy is completely a participating policy and there is a guideline of the I.R.D.A. Life Insurance Regulations 2013 is that “ 90% of premium paid less any survival benefit already paid, if surrendered in the last two years of policy, if term of the policy is less than seven years”.
Here, we assessed that the complainant is a consumer of O.Ps and it is the duty of the O.Ps to provide proper service and proper information as and when required by the complainant. But the O.Ps failed to do the same in this case. It is also asserted that the assessment of O.Ps on policy bond is inadequate.
So from the perusal of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 apply to all type of goods and all type of services availed by the consumer against consideration paid or promised. Section 1 (iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is of wide connotation.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V/S BALBIR SING that each and every element of suffering while availing service as a consumer has to be taken into consideration while compensating him for the loss or injury or otherwise suffered by him due to negligence or deficiency in service of the service provider.
In further the Apex Court has held that the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is an addition and not in derogation of any other law.
In this case, the advocate for the complainant as well as the advocate for O.Ps have argued on the point of their claim.
Perused the documents of complainant as well as the O.P. No. 2 to 6 we found that the claim of complainant is justified and relevant and as such taken in consideration.
In view of the above facts, we considered that, this Forum has wide jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute and the complainant has cause of action.
Hence, it is apparent from the above issues that there is a deficiency of service by the O.Ps as not attending properly to the grievance of the complainant for which the complainant is suffering financial loss and mental agony due to negligence and deficiency of service by the O.Ps. So we are of considered opinion that there is a deficiency in service by the O.Ps. Thus the O.Ps are liable for deficiency in service.
So accordingly, the issues answered and goes in favour of the complainant.
ISSUE No. V.
It is clear crystal that the complainant has proved his case and he is entitled to get relief in this case. Hence, order.
Accordingly, this issue answered in favour of the complainant.
O R D E R.
In the aforesaid matrix of facts and circumstances, the complaint is allowed and we direct U/s 14 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as below :-
- We direct the O.Ps to pay the amount of Rs. 68,299.58 Paise (Rupees sixty eight thousand two hundred ninety nine and fifty eight paise) to the complainant towards the above rest amount of the policy alongwith interest @ 9% (nine per cent) per annum from 12.09.2016 till payment within 45 (forty five) days from the date of order, failing which the O.Ps are liable to pay interest @ 12% (twelve per cent) per annum over the above amount from 12.09.2016 till payment.
- We further direct the O.Ps to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) to the complainant as compensation towards mental agony and harassment and further pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) towards litigation cost within 45 (forty five) days from the date of order.
- Failing which the above order, the complainant is at liberty to take steps as per process of law.
Order pronounced in the Open Court of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nuapada, this the 7th day of October 2017.
