BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.191/2015

DATED ON THIS THE 21^st July 2017

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                          B.E., LLB., PGDCLP,    - MEMBER

Sri DEVAKUMAR.M.C,

Member

1.     The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite parties, alleging the deficiency in service and seeking a direction to refund the balance amount of Rs.26,921/- towards the policy No.10133244 and to refund Rs.25,000/- in respect of 2^nd policy, with the declared profit of Rs.7,454/-, in all about Rs.59,375/- along with interest, and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- compensation for the deficiency in service, mental agony and inconvenience caused with cost and such other reliefs.
2.     The complainant obtained a 10 years term insurance policy w.e.f. 07.10.2008, from opposite party. The premium amount was to be paid once in every six months.  On surrender of the said policy, during 4^th year of the policy term, refund of a surrender fund value of Rs.96,975/- was assured.  But, the opposite party paid Rs.70,054/- only.
3.     On demand for refund of balance of Rs.26,921/-, the opposite party staff, insisted to take a new policy for a premium amount of Rs.25,000/-.  A new policy was issued on 29.01.2013, as against the receipt of Rs.25,000/- vide cheque bearing No.584421.
4.      In spite of the above, the opposite party staff once again insisted the complainant, to take another policy for a premium of Rs.30,000/–, to refund the balance amount of the policy.  Aggrieved by the same and despite of repeated demands, caused a legal notice on 30.12.2014 calling upon the opposite parties, to refund the entire amount, was replied untenably on 30.01.2015.  Hence, the complaint seeking reliefs.
5.     The opposite party No.1 remained absent, hence placed exparte.
6.     The opposite party No.2 filed its version and submits the policies were obtained through different Third Party Administrators, governed under IRDA (Insurance Broker) Regulations, 2002 and they have not been arrayed as parties to the complaint, hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed, for non-joinder of necessary parties.  Further submits, the complaint is barred by period of limitation.  The opposite party was given the risk coverage for the period of premium payment.  A sum of Rs.75,000/- premium was paid till 02.05.2011 and a request for surrender of the policy was made on 22.10.2012.  As per the surrender clause a sum of Rs.70,054/- was paid on 23.10.2012, after deducting the surrender charges at 4% of the fund value.
7.     The second policy was issued on receipt of proposal form with premium amount.  A request letter dated 15.07.2013 was received for surrender of the policy (i.e. after the lapse of about seven months).  The complainant failed to seek cancellation of the policy within 15 days of free look period, as such, bound by the terms and conditions of the policy.
8.     Hence, allegation are denied as false and submits there are no deficiency in service and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
9.     The complainant lead his evidence by filing affidavit and relying on several documents.  The opposite party No.2 filed its affidavit with documents as evidence.  Filing written arguments, the respective counsels submitted oral arguments.  Perusing the material on record, matter posted for orders.
10. The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, in not refunding the balance amount under policy No.1 and entire premium amount paid towards policy No.2 and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?
2.  What order?

11.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

12.  Point No.1:- The complainant purchased a life insurance policy on 07.10.2008, by paying half-yearly premium amount.  The policy was for a term of 10 years.  He was assured a return of Rs.96,975/-, on surrender of the policy, at the end of 4^th policy year.  On surrender of the policy, a sum of Rs.70,054/- only was paid by opposite party.  He demanded for payment of the balance amount of Rs.26,921/- during January 2013.
13. The complainant was promised to refund Rs.26,921/-, subject to purchase of another policy for a premium of Rs.25,000/-.  As such, he deposited the amount vide cheque dated 29.01.2013.  On failure to refund the said amount, stopped payment and repeatedly demanded for refund of both policy amount with profit (bonus).  The opposite parties failed to comply the demand.  Hence, the complaint for the reliefs.
14. The opposite party No.2 contended that, the complainant obtained the insurance policies on the information furnished by the Third Party Administrator (TPA), who owes a duty to disclose the exact terms and conditions of the policy, benefits etc., to the customers (insured).
15. The insurance policy was issued on the basis of information furnished in the proposal form and on receipt of the premium amount.  A total of Rs.75,000/- was received till 02.05.2011 and later a request for surrender of the policy was received on 22.10.2012.
16. On processing the surrender request, Rs.70,054/- was paid on 23.10.2012 through NEFT, duly deducting the applicable surrender charges as per clause 2.2 of the policy terms and conditions.
17. The complainant paid only the initial premium amount towards the 2^nd policy on 29.01.2013 and failed to pay the subsequent premiums, as such the policy got lapsed.  The complainant had a 15 days free look option to state his grievances with regard to the policy, but not raised any objection until 15.07.2013 i.e. for over 07 months from the date of issue of the 2^nd policy.
18. Thereby, the opposite party No.2 contended that, it has acted in accordance with the policy terms and conditions and has not committed any deficiency in service.  As such, contended that, the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
19. The complainant failed to establish that, he was assured to get a sum of Rs.96,975/- on surrender of the policy during the 4^th year of the policy period.  Admittedly, the opposite party No.2 paid Rs.70,054/- to the complainant after deducting the applicable surrender charges as per the policy terms and conditions.  Further, the complainant failed to establish that, the opposite party have demanded, to take another policy in order to refund the 1^st policy balance amount.  The complainant also failed to return the 2^nd policy within 15 days free look period.  As such, we opine that, the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service.  So, the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs as sought for and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Point No.1 is answered in the negative.
20. Point No.2:- In view of the observations made in point No.1, this complaint is to be dismissed, hence the following.
21.   :: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 21^st July 2017)