KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL NO. 762/11

JUDGMENT DATED : 10.5.2012

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU             :  PRESIDENT

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA                           :  MEMBER

M/s Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co; Ltd.,

GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada.                         :  APPELLANT

(By Adv. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh)

Vs

1.       Chandran V., Vainingal House,

          Uppilikkai P.O., Nileshwar,

          Kasargod.

2.       Chandran Nair, S/o Appunhi Nair,

          Kozunthil, Nileswaram,

          Kasargod.                                                    :  RESPONDENTS

(R1 by Advs. Thirumala P.K. Mani & others)

JUDGMENT

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER

          This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kasaragod in CC No. 39/2011. The opposite party No. 1 is the appellant and the respondents are the complainant and 2^nd opposite party respectively.

2.       The opposite party /appellant prefers this appeal under the direction of the Forum below that to pay Rs. 20,000/- @ 9% from 18.12.07 till the date of payment less Rs.3,919/- which they already paid. We directed to the Forum below that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are liable to pay this amount and it also directed them to pay Rs.3,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

3.       In short, the complainant is having a case that the 2^nd opposite party canvassed an insurance policy which offered by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant at the time of proposal; the 2^nd opposite party agent made the complainant believe that he will get Rs. 40,000/- if he remitted Rs. 20,000/-as a single premium. Subsequently he received a letter demanding premium. Thereafter he received a letter stating that this policy lapsed and also a cheque for Rs.3919/-. His allegation is that the opposite parties deceived many parties like the complainant.  He claimed refund of Rs.20,000/- with compensation of Rs.5,000/-

4.       The 1^st opposite party filed version, but the 2^nd opposite party remained absent. Inspite of receipt of notice the 2^nd opposite party called absent and set ex-parte. In the version the 2^nd opposite party contended that the complainant placed the proposal for unit “Gain Gold Plus’ a unit linked policy and it’s premium was Rs.20,000/- p.a and premium term was for 10 years. A policy certificate and policy documents were issued to the complainant. There is no inducement in the matter of Life Insurance Proposal. All proposals and issue of policies are done through written documents. The 2^nd opposite party is an agent qualified and certified by IRDA by conducting examinations. He is qualified to canvass the people for any insurance company and can propose to choose any product of any company. The 2^nd opposite party had proposed the complainant’s proposal before 1^st opposite party and 1^st opposite party issued policy accepting the proposal. There is no master and servant relationship between the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. The complainant has not utilized the free lock period facility. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed and the complaint deserves a dismissal.

5.       In the written version he contended that the complainant failed to pay the earlier premium consequently after issuing policy to him.

6.       The evidence consisted of Exts. A1 to A2 and examined the complainant as PW1.  On the part of the opposite parties marked documents Exts. B1 and B2. After considering the evidence facts and circumstances, the Forum below passed the above order. This appeal prefers from the impugned order passed by the Forum below.

7.       On this day this appeal came before this commission for final hearing the counsel for the appellant and respondent/complainant is present and they argued their own cases in detail. The counsel for the appellant argued the appeal on the grounds of appeal memorandum that he is not at all responsible for the act committed by his agent. It is not as per the consent; or the instructions of the appellant they are not at all liable to pay any amount if any committed by the agent. Another contention is that the complainant is a defaulter in the payment of premium as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Even the appellant/company issued notice to the complainant but he replied that he was not in a position to pay any amount as premium due to insufficient fund. The counsel for the appellant strongly argued that the complainant and the opposite party is a relationship in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy issued by them. We argued that the order passed by the Forum below is not accordance with the provisions of law and evidence and it is not legally sustainable. But the very same time the counsel for the respondent/complainant argued that the complainant was mislead by the agent appointed by the 1^st opposite party /company. This act is bounding to the appellant also. He also committed that there is no policy condition given to him by the Insurance Company (appellant) he submitted that the order passed by the Forum below is strictly accordance with the provisions of law and evidence and it is legally sustainable. He prays to dismiss the appeal and confirm the order passed by the Forum below.

8.       This commission heard in detail and perused the entire evidence available in the case bundle and seeing that the complainant who paid the 1^st premium of Rs.20,000/-. Latter he was sent by the notice by the appellant to paying further instalment of the premia. But he replied that he was not having sufficient fund for the payment of the premium. We can’t believe that the complainant mislead by the agent and not aware the fact that in it is bound to pay the 2^nd premium etc. By received the latter; his further claim is estopped. But from the appellant/opposite party is also not properly adduced the terms and conditions of the policy. There is no sufficient evidence from the part of the opposite parties to substantiate his case that the complainant is not entitled to get the refund of premium paid by him as per the terms and conditions of policy. In the circumstance, we are not seeing any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Forum below. But the complainant is not fully entitled to get Rs.20,000/- with the interest @ 9% p.a.. We decided to modified this amount as Rs.15,000/- only.

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and directed the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to pay Rs.15,000/- less Rs.3,919/-. The opposite parties further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- towards cost of the proceedings. This appeal is disposed accordance with the above modification.

The points of the appeal discussed one by one and answered accordingly. No cost ordered.

M.K. ABDULLA SONA:  MEMBER

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

Da