DATE OF FILING : 24.05.2016.
DATE OF S/R : 01.10.2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 14.03.2017.
Sri Samir Kayal,
son of Sri Bechu Kayal,
residing at Balitikuri Khaldhar Para, P.O. Balitikuri,
P.S. Jagacha, District Howrah,. ….…………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
1. Exide Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,
having its registered office at
Manipal Technologies Ltd. VDP Department,
Unit IV, H.O. Press Corner, Manipal 576104
and branch office at 3 no. Mango Lane,
Kolkata 700001.
2. Bajaj Capital Insurance Broking Ltd.,
having its branch office at 166/A/2, G.T. Road,
Golden Kanta ( near MCKV School ) Liluah,
Howrah 711204…..…………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Samir Kayal, against the o.p. no. 1, Exide Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, praying for a direction upon the o.ps. to return Rs. 21,600/- including interest till realization and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment and to pay Rs. 20,000/- as litigation costs.
- The case of the petitioner is that the o.p. no. 2 being the agent of o.p. no. 1 in August, 2013 contacted the petitioner and convinced him to purchase their policy with good return and on 23.9.2013 petitioner invested Rs. 21,600/- in new fulfilling life anticipated whole life plan of o.p. in policy no. 02768483 and it was assured by the agent that it was an one time investment plan. After a few months the petitioner got the policy kits and he was under the impression that he does not require to make any further payment as it was one time investment policy and so he did not go through the terms and conditions of the policy. Later in the month of January, 2014 the petitioner noticed that it was not one time investment policy but yearly basis policy for a continuous period of 16 years with maturity date 24.9.2028 and then they contacted the o.ps. and also the employee of the agent who assured him that if he makes further payment of Rs. 21,600/- then it will automatically turn into a single term policy.
- The petitioner contacted the regional office of the o.p. company and they told him that it was not possible to turn the policy into a single term policy and being perplexed and confused he lodged a written complaint before the op. for causing fraud and unfair trade practice upon him. He also requested the o.p. to cancel the policy and returned his Rs. 21,600/- but they did not pay heed to him so he filed this case.
- The o.p. contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegation made against them and submitted that the petitioner Samir Kayal being an educated man has availed of life insurance policy from the o.p. no. 1 on 23.9.2013 proposing for “new fulfilling life anticipated whole life plan” which is duly approved by the insurance regulatory development authority of India. The premium opted by the petitioner was 21,600/- to be paid for a period of 16 years being yearly premium and the sum assured was Rs./ 1,88,460/- for a term of 46 years. The policy holders had liberty to review the terms and continuous of the policy and option to cancel the policy within the free lock period of 15 days from the receipt of policy documents but he did not do the same. Our Hon’ble National Commission failed that if the petitioner is an educated man and supposed to read the terms and conditions of the policies there is oral rule or conditions of the policies and one has to act in accordance with the same work of the policy. It is also well settled that a man can tell a lie but a document cannot and so the present case be dismissed as there was no deficiency in service or any misrepresentation.
- Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip off reiteration. In support of his case the petitioner field affidavit as well as documents being letter of the o.p. company dated 28.9.2013 addressed to the petitioner congratulating him for accepting the life insurance policy of the o.p. company. It is specifically mentioned therein that if the petitioner is not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy then the o.p. company gave him option to cancel the policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of policy. It is further noticed from the policy schedule that the policy commencement date was 24.9.2013 and the policy maturity date being 24.9.2059 and the last premium due was 24.9.2028 and the premium term being 16 years. It is categorically submitted that the premium falls due each year on 24th September. Here the petitioner signed the petition in English and submitted that he was engaged in business and thus being an educated man it cannot be accepted that he did not know the terms and conditions of the policy. When he was provided with an option that he could cancel the policy. It is also mentioned that the policy would be canceled after payment of three years’ premium and then the surrendered value shall not be less than guaranteed cash value. In the instant case, there was payment of premium for one year only which does not justify the cancellation of the policy even if surrender by the petitioner. Policy of insurance is nothing but a contract and any of the parties of the insurance would not be entitled to the reliefs if they violate the terms and conditions of the contract as happened in this case. So the petitioner violating the terms and conditions of the policy document is not entitled to any benefit. Thus in the instant case the petitioner going against the terms of the contract is not entitled to relief as prayed for.
In the result, the application fails.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. No. 457 of 2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest without costs against the O.Ps.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
