Orissa

Rayagada

CC/66/2018

Nilandar Hial - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Executive Officer, Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Pradeep Ku Dash

28 May 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No.  66/ 2018.                                  Date.  28      .     5  . 2019

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                          President.

Sri  Gadadhara Sahu,                                            Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

            Sri Nilandar Hial,  S/O: Late Sana Hial, , At: Sankrada, PS:Tikiri,  Po/Dist:Rayagada,  765 017  (Odisha)                                  …. Complainant.

            Versus.

1.The  Chief Executive Officer,     Max  New York  life insurance Company Ltd.,  12^th. Floor, DLF square, Jacaranda Marg, DLF phase-2, Gurgaon, 122002, State: Hariyana.

2. Authorised Agent, Abira Insurance Services Ltd., S.B.Mansion, 16,  R.N. Mukharjee Road,  Kalkata- 700001                       

3.The Manager,  Abira Insurance Services Ltd.,  At: Main Road, Po/Dist: Rayagada.

.…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri P. K.Das, Advocate, Rayagada

For the O.P No.1:- Sri  Chinmoy Patra, advocate and associates

For the O.P. No.2 & 3 :- Sri  Aruna Kumar Lenka, Advocate and associates.

JUDGEMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non payment of  Bonus and maturity amount towards policy No.286109384   for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. 

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps  put in their appearance and filed their written version through their learned counsels  in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps  taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps.  Hence the O.Ps prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the learned counsel for  both  the  parties.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                                        FINDINGS.

On perusal of the record we observed  it is not disputed  that the complainant was a policy  holder  bearing policy No. 286109384.  The complainant  had availed  a  policy  having sum assured value of Rs.50,000/- and policy  name  is “MAX LIFE stepping stones 11 yearly     PREMIUM PAYMENT. The first premium of Rs.6,765/- was paid  on 19.10.2006  by the complainant  and subsequent   premium amount was fixed at Rs. 6,765/-  which was payable till 11(Eleven) years annually including the first premium as paid. The premium paying mode was annual as per option selection done by the complainant  in the proposal form dtd. 04.10.2006. (copies of the proposal form and policy bond is annexed  in the file which is marked as Annexure-I & II). Further there is no dispute that the complainant had paid 7 years annual premium and failed to pay  the  balance  4 yearly  premiums as per terms of the policy.

The main grievance of the complainant is that  he has received a sum of Rs.28,508.26 against the  payment of Rs. 47,355/- less than the amount paid by him i.e. Rs. 18,847.00 and when asked the reason the O.P. No.1  has  stated  that it is  the surrender value of the said policy and the complainant  is  not entitled anything more. Hence the  C.C. petition filed by the complainant  to get  the  balance amount.

The O.P. No.1 in their written version contended that the complainant had instead of paying the full premium for continuous 11 years as per the contract terms and conditions  of the policy  which is sine quo non for enforcement of the policy contract had only paid 7(Seven) years premiums.    Hence the complainant policy was automatically converted   in to reduced paid up mode for non  payment of premiums as  on default as per the terms of the contract for the policy  and  the  complainant was paid the rightful maturity value a sum of Rs.28,508.26  as  per the calculation  for same is mentioned  in the policy  having maturity date as October 12^th.  2017  as per contract terms and the complainant  is not entitled  to receive anything more.  

The Ist. Question whether the complainant qualifies to be a Consumer?   The contention of the O.Ps that the complaint is not maintainable under the C.P. Act  is longer res integra  inview of the decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi  in case of Neelavasant Raje   Vrs. Amagh Industries and Another  reported  in 1993 (3) CPR page No.343 where in  it has been held that where a company or firm  invites deposits promising attractive rate of interest, it amounts  to rendering  of financial  services as it receives deposits  from customers/consumers and pays interest  therein. The consideration for the  hiring of the service is the payment of deposit  amount  so as to enable the company to invest or utilize the money for  earning profits.  Therefore the deposit holder the complainant  would be a consumer within the meaning of the  Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act. Further when a deposit has been accepted to be repaid with interest and admissible  benefits.   It is a service to be rendered and failure  to repay the amount, amounts to deficiency in service under the C.P. Act. The O.Ps have in the instant case accepted the deposit and agreed to render service by way of  returning the principal  with  interest and admissible benefits.  The consideration being the   deposit amount. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances of the case we do not find much force in the contention of the  O.Ps  as the complaint petition is not maintainable under the C.P. Act.

Further this forum gone through the complaint petition and documents available in the record. This forum by relying upon a citation passed by National Commission, New Delhi in the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Versus M/s Sukhadham India Pvt. Ltd.,2011(1) CPR 191 such as :- “ Insurance Company must settle claim without delay”. In the light of the above decision of law we allow the case.

            On perusal of the record this forum found the complainant had paid a total premium of Rs. 47,355/- and after maturity date  he  was  received back from the O.Ps  a sum of Rs.28,508/-. Thus the O.Ps have  made a total payment of Rs. 28,508/-.against the payment of Rs. 47,355/- and  the  O.Ps have kept a sum of Rs. 18,847/- while making final payment on the plea  that  for non continuation  of  above policy.

During the course of hearing the  complainant vehemently argued that  in the present case at the time of  filled up   proposal form the complainant was asked  by the agent  of the O.Ps to  sign on the doted lines without explaining  the benefits of the  scheme and  the entire proposal form was written by the agent in his own hand writing.  The agents responsibility is clearly explained in the IRDA instructions and also U/S- 182 and 212 of the contract act. Here the agents has failed to discharge the duty as an agent and in order to get his income as commission has falsely represented the rural folks to divert their money.  Hence the OPs had clearly violated the  norms  issued by the IRDA from time to time and as such the OPs   are  liable to refund  the amount paid by the complainant.

 In view of the discussion above it is found to be an  unfair  trade practice made by the agent of the  O.Ps.  The O.Ps have introduced the agent to do the unfair deal with the rural and urban people as seen from the Complaint petition and  argument advanced  by him,   as such the complainant is  entitled to get refund of the balance amount deposited by the complainant in the said scheme so as to enable them to invest the same with their choice.

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Alliance Juris. Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.                                                                                                      

 

ORDER.

The  complaint  petition  stands allowed  in part  against the  O.P. No.1(Insurance company) and  dismissed against the O.P. No.2 & 3( Abira insurance)  on contest.

The O.P. No.1( Max New York  life Insurance) is directed to pay Rs.18,847.00  to the complainant  towards  balance deposited amount deposited by the complainant in the above policy. Parties are left to bear their own cost.

The above order is to be complied within   60 days  from the date of receipt of this order. Service the copies of the order to the parties free of cost.

Dictated and corrected  by me.

 Pronounced in the open Forum today on this   28th.      day  of  May, 2019 .

 

Member                               Member.                                                   President