SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Unfair trade practice in respect of non-payment of assured matured amount under Money Plus Policy are the allegations arrayed against the Opp.Parties.
2. Complaint, in brief reveals that complainant No.1 to 3 are family members. OP No.2 acts as the agent of Life Insurance Corporation of India is related to the complainant and had immense faith on him. OP No.2 alongwith Development Officer of OP-Corporation persuaded the complainants to invest in ‘Money Plus’ policy and handed over a leaflet to the complainant. According to the leaf let the plan of ‘Money plus’ policy reveals that if an investor invests a certain amount per year for five years then from sixth year he/she will get the money invest earlier per year for 15 years. Being impressed complainant No.1 opted for 3 policies amounting of Rs.total 1 lakhs. The total invested amount of Rs.1 lakhs were fractioned into three parts. In the name of complainant No.1 Rs.25,000/-,2nd in the name of complainant No.2 Rs.50,000/-, and lastly Rs.25,000/- in the name of the complainant No.3. The Ops assured that on payment of regular premium for five year, the complainant No.1,2, and 3 would be getting money return of Rs.75,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/- and rs.75,000/- respecting in 15 years. As per the assurance complainant paid the premium on dtd.21.03.2007 regularly for five years and the last premium was paid in March,2011. But as per the money plus leaflet and assurance Ops deviated and did not pay the annual returns with the plea that the said ‘Money Plus’ policy have been invested in share market and due to fall down of share market annual return can not be paid. It is further stated that neither OP No.2 nor their Development Officer has ever disclosed that ‘money plus’ policy will be invested in the share market. Complainant to get the assured annual return of the said policy contacted OP No.1, but the Ops did not pay the annual return for which a legal notice was issued on dtd.26.03.2014 by Regd. Post with AD till date the problem of the complainant is not solved anyway. Such acts of the OPs are unfair trade practice and complainant seeks redressal of the Forum to get Rs.1,49,800/- which includes annual return, interests, compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation.
3. Being noticed Ops appeared through their Ld.Counsel Mr. R.K.Samal and filed written statement. Ops in their parawise replies deny the allegations categorically and submitting the facts, it is stated that OP No.1 or Life Insurance Corporation of India have never issued any leaflet or schedule of payment in money plus policy as per the complaint petition. It is averred that OP No.1 has issued policy bond under money plus policy to the policy holders and the benefits derives out of the said policies are clearly reflected in the policy bond, if the policy holder is not satisfied with the benefit condition an option is left before the policy holder to cancel the policy within 15 days of receipt of the policy bond. It is further stated that complainants have never made any representation to OP No.2 to cancel the policy bond within the stipulated period. Ops state that the allegations of persuation for availing the money plus policy OP No.2 and development officer is not a fact. As per I.R.D.A. guidelines the relationship between OP-Corporation and agent is limited to canvass the business of LIC by a Agent. It is further submitted that complainants have never lodged any allegations against the agent before OP No.1. OP-Corporation in the written statement pray that as the allegations are false and fabricated the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
4. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and examined the documents filed into the case record along with written Notes on argument filed by complainant. The admitted facts of the case are that complainants obtained three ‘Money Plus’ policy issued by OP-Insurance Company. It is admitted that complainants have received policy bonds against the ‘Money Plus’ policy floated by OP-Insurance Company. In the present dispute it is alleged that OP No.2 the Agent of the OP-Insurance Corporation along with the Development Officer of OP-Company persuaded the complainants to invest in ‘Money Plus’ policy by showing a ‘leaftlet’ presented by OP No.2 Agent. Non-payment of assured return and deviation of the ‘leaflet’ according to complainant is a unfair trade practice. Countering the allegations, OP No.1 states that the Agent of insurance Corporation is authorized by the I.R.D.A. to canvass for Life Insurance business, beyond that OP-Insurance Corporation has no authority to control the Agent, if any written complaint is lodged against the agent the OP-Insurance Corporation can take action against the Agent. It is also submitted that complainants are provided with original policy bond where fifteen(15) days time is given to the policy holder to cancel the policy after verifying and not satisfied with the terms and conditions/privileges of the policy as the money plus policy is a share linked policy.
Parties entered into the dispute filed documents in support of their stand. This Forum for better appreciation of the facts marked the documents filed into the disputes annexures. The documents of the complainants are marked as Annexure C-1 to C-V and the documents filed by Ops are marked as Annexure O series.
It is clear from the facts and documents that complainants obtained three Money plus policy in the year 2007 bearing Policy No.586742917 ( in the name of S.Sahu with sum assured or Rs.50,000/-. Second Policy in the name of N.Sahu bearing Policy No.586742916 with sum assured of Rs.50,000/- the third and last policy is in the name of M.K.Sahu bearing Policy No.586742918 with a sum assured of Rs. 1 lakh, against the said ‘Money Plus’ policies original policy bonds have been issued to the complainants with the terms and conditions mentioning thereon. Considering the allegations and counter allegations it appears from the said money plus policy and proposal form wherein the Top of the policy and proposed form it is mentioned that “ In this policy, the investment risk in investment port folio is borne by the policy holder”. It is also clear from the terms and conditions of policy bond and proposal form signed by the complainants that the investment in ‘Money Plus’ Policy and returns thereof depends on the condition of the share market. It is also clear that after receipt of the policy bond complainant paid annual premium regularly till March,2011 as per the complaint petition. In addition to that complainant after receipt of the policy and knowledge of the terms and conditions of policy of their investment where investment involved in share market and when there is a specific provision that the investment risk in investment port folio is borne by the policy holder. The complainants have lost the opportunity to cancel the policy by surrendering the same within 15 days of receipt of the policy in the provision of free look cancellation period. Hence, the claim of assured return on investment amount on ‘Money Plus’ policy by complainants are not legally sustainable.
Next importance is given by the complainants to the ‘leaflet’ issued by OP No.2-Agent which according to complainant is a misleading propaganda and unfair trade practice. It is also claimed that for the wrong acts of the Agent OP No.2 Principal OP No.1 is liable for the same as per Indian Contract Act. The disputed ‘leaf let’ is marked as Annexure C-1. On perusal of Annexure C-1 it is marked that the disputed leaflet is a electronic/D.T.P. printed leaflet with different tables of investment and their returns. The leaflet does not carry the emblem of the OP-Insurance Corporation, only a rubber stamp/seal is affixed in the body of the leaflet mentioning the name of OP No.2 who acts as a agent of the OP-Insurance Corporation. Further the disputed leaflet no where discloses that the investment is share market oriented policy equally the leaflet does not assured the investors any guarantee/assured returns of their investment. The leaflet only discloses by way of example that if an investor invest certain amount in ‘Money Plus’ policy he/she will be entitle to receive a certain return, but not the assured or guaranteed returns. According to us the plea of the complainants that the ‘leaflets’ issued by OP No.2 persuaded and misguided the complainants to invest in the ‘Money Plus policy can not be accepted as unfair trade practice. If the persuasion of OP No.2 is a fact, but while submitting the proposal form and accepting the policy bond without any protest and knowing the fate of the investment in share market, where risk of investment is involved. In allegation of unfair trade practice against OP No.2 complainants in their written Notes on argument cited decisions reported in 2006(3) CPR-57 and 201. After going through the cited decision, it is observed that the definition of ‘unfair trade practice’ defined in the citations are different from the facts and circumstances of the present dispute. So far the other issues and Sections of Indian Contract are concerned, it is already discussed in detail in relation to the present dispute. Complainants till filing of the proposal and receipt of the policy bond has never brought this matter before OP No.1, the Principal informing such misguiding information to the investors for action against OP No.2 except the legal notice issued to Ops on dtd.26.03.2014(Annexure-V).
In the aforesaid observations, it is quite clear that OP No.1-Insurance Company has not committed any unfair trade practice when the complainant themselves filed the proposal form, receipt the policy bond and lost the opportunity to cancel the policy within the stipulated period on knowledge of their investment on share market and returned thereof subject to condition of the share market. So far the leaflet distributed by OP No.2-Agent is concerned, the complainant is at liberty to raised the grievance before OP No.1 or authority of I.R.D.A as this dispute is not raised earlier before the concerned authorities, if the complainant likes to do so. Time limit is not a bar to hear the allegations of complainants by the OP No.1-Corporation.
The complaint is dismissed on contest.
No order as to cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 6th April,2016.
