O R D E R

Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                   The complainant filed this complaint before this Forum u/s.12 of the C.P. Act for getting a relief from the opposite parties.

                   2. The fact of the case is stated as follows:-  The 2^nd opposite party approached and requested the complainant for taking an insurance plan with 1^st opposite party, the complainant joined the said insurance plan vide Policy No.11431326 (Client ID No.5268944720). The said plan is known as Unit Linked Pension Plan (Growth Fund).  The total premium of the said pension plan was Rs.50,000/- with an option to top up the premium for 9 years.  According to the complainant, the policy started on 07.12.2007 and it will be matured on 07.12.2017. 

         3. The particulars of the payments and allocation of the units made by the opposite parties till 20.12.2010 is as stated below:

                   4. As per the above statement the complainant made a total investment of Rs.5,55,000/-.  The opposite parties allotted the complainant a total unit of 6642.53 having a value of Rs.4,29,205/- as on 20.12.2011.  The complainant contended that on March 2013 she received a letter from 1^st opposite party stating that the complainant’s policy had been cancelled due to the reason that the investment amount had been fallen below the premium amount and a cheque was issued for Rs.4,99,377.10 to the complainant.  The complainant approached 2^nd opposite party and informed the details of the letter to him 2^nd opposite party inform to the complainant that the policy was active and alive and the said letter was sent as a mistake.  2^nd opposite party again assured that as on 20.03.2013 the complainant had a total number of 6516.11879 units in her credit after the deduction of other charges and taxes.  Thereafter, the complainant received a letter dated 12.08.2014 stating that the complainant has not cashed the cheque No.316950 dated 25.03.2013 for Rs.4,99,377.10.  Moreover, the opposite parties requested the complainant to furnish bank details for crediting directly that amount to the complainant’s bank account.  According to the complainant, through the statement of account furnished by the complainant to the opposite parties clearly show that there is no such issuance of cheque as alleged by the opposite parties.  Anyway, it is illegal part of the opposite parties to cancel the policy and refund the investment amount before the expiry of the maturity as per the policy certificate.  The complainant again contended that on 12.08.2014 the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party, at that time 2^nd opposite party requested the complainant to furnish the complainant’s bank account for crediting the above said amount.  The opposite parties again assured that the complainant’s policy would be reinstated with the same units, if the complainant re-depositing the same amount.  As per the direction of the said opposite parties, he re-deposited the same amount and another Rs.20,000/- as top up amount on 01.09.2014.  At this time, 2^nd opposite party inform that the complainant’s unit would be 6685.50122.  On 24.11.2014, the complainant received a statement to the effect that unit have been reduced to 4414.65638 on 10.09.2014 instead of 6685.50122.  Even though the complainant requested the opposite party concerned to rectify the anomaly in the account statement as stated above, the opposite parties not turned up.  Again on 08.12.2014, the complainant invested Rs.10,000/- to this scheme, thus he made a total investment of Rs.5,85,000/-.  However, it is seen that the complainant’s unit value was only Rs.4,59,205/- on such date and an amount of Rs.1,26,000/- has been debited by opposite parties as their allocation charges.  Above all opposite parties have taken Rs.1,648.24 as administration charges and taxes.  According to the complainant the above said reductions from the investment is totally illegal and against the law of insurance.

                   5. According to the complainant, even though she deposited Rs.5,85,000/- to the policy, the unit issued to the complainant only for Rs.4,59,205/-.  The reduction of the amount can be calculated as 21.785%.  The said reductions made by the opposite parties are against IRDA Circular.  The act of the opposite parties are against the prevailing law of insurance and a clear violation of IRDA Circular.  The act of the opposite parties are clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  The complainant again stated that this Forum may necessary direction to the opposite parties for reinstating the units to 6939.5864 instead of the present unit 4468.74127.  The complainant again requested this Forum to direct the opposite parties for paying a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs and cost of Rs.10,000/- against the opposite parties.

                   6. The above said complaint filed by the complainant before this Forum with 8 documents.  This Forum peruse the complaint and records produced before us and decided to order notice for appearance against the opposite parties 1 and 2.  Though the opposite parties received notice they did not appear before the Forum and at last the opposite parties 1 and 2 are set exparte.

                   7. On the basis of the complaint and the records before the Forum, they raised the following points:

1. Whether the opposite parties are committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against the complainant?
2. If so what are the relief and costs awarded in favour of the complainant?

       8. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant she is examined as PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A8.  Ext.A1 is the photocopy of the policy certificate issued by the opposite parties.  Ext.A2 is the terms and conditions of the policy.  Ext.A3 series are the premium payment receipts (12 Nos.).  Ext.A4 is the letter dated 12.08.2014 sent by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.  Ext.A5 is the e.mail letter issued by the opposite parties.  Ext.A6 is the photocopy of interim statement from 07.12.2007 to 19.11.2014.  Ext.A7 is the photocopy of the fund summary dated 13.04.2015.  Ext.A8 is the advocate notice dated 22.01.2015 issued by the complainant to the opposite parties.  Since the opposite parties are exparte in this case the evidence given by PW1 is unchallenged.  He deposed in terms of the complainant.

          9. Point Nos.1 & 2:- For the sake of convenience we are considering Point No.1 and 2 together.  When we peruse the complaint and the deposition before the Forum, we can come to a conclusion that the complainant is a policy holder under the opposite parties.  Ext.A1 and A2 are policy certificate and terms and conditions of the policy respectively.  It is a cogent evidence of the relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties in the insurance dealings.  Ext.A3 series in No.12 is an evidence of the premium payment of the complainant and its renewal.  Ext.A4 and A5 are the letters issued from the opposite parties shows that the policy is reinstated and the matter is informed the complainant as per Ext.A4.  Ext.A6 is the interim statement from 07.12.2007 to 19.11.2014.  As per Ext.A6 (Page No.4) it is evident to see that on 20.03.2013 the number of unit to the complainant is 6516.11879 and on 30.09.2014 the same unit is reduced to 4414.6538.  This fact can be traced from Page No.4 of Ext.A6.  When we rely the complaint before us the present unit is 4668.74127.  But as per the above Ext.A6 Page No.4 it is seen 4414.65638.  According to the complainant, she is eligible for unit is 6939.5864 on 30.09.2014.  When we rely Ext.A7 dated 13^th April, 2015 the unit balance is 4668.74127 and the fund value is 5,95,299.99.  Hence we can come to a conclusion that the complainant has allotted a unit of 4668.74127 on 30^th April, 2015.  When we peruse the complaint it is seen that the opposite parties are illegally reduced the unit of 2270.84484 on the basis of the allocation charges.

          10. According to the complainant, this insurance scheme is a Family Benefit Pension Scheme and it is for welfare of her and her families’ future life.  On the basis of the available evidence, there is no reason to see that the reduction of the unit to 4468.74127 is reasonable or justifiable.  When we go through the Ext.A3 series No.12 in this case it is an evidence of prompt payment of premium by the complainant and it also seen that 2 times she remitted top up premium.  Sincerity, bonafide and promptness of the complainant as per the case record is highly appreciable.  In the light of the above discussion we found that opposite party 1 and 2 committed grave deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which highly affected the benefit of the complainant through this insurance policy.  We again found that even though the complainant approached the opposite parties several times and at last issued a lawyers notice as per Ext.A8 series advocate notice and allied records the opposite parties not even to consider the grievances or give any proper answer to the notice.  Hence in this case we found Point No.1 and 2 in favour of the complainant.

          11. In the result, we pass the following orders:

1.  The opposite parties are hereby directed to restore a unit of 6939.5864 as on 13.04.2015 and allow all benefits and bonus till the maturity period of the said insurance policy.
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh only) as compensation to the complainant from the date of this order onwards with 10% interest till its realisation.
3. The opposite parties are directed to pay a cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant with interest of 10% from the date of order onwards. 

         Declared in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of September, 2015. 

                                                                                   (Sd/-)

                P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,

                                                                         (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)        :        (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II)           :        (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Sarala Bai. B

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Photocopy of the policy certificate issued by the opposite parties. 

A2 :  Terms and conditions of the policy. 

A3 series :  Premium payment receipts (12 Nos.). 

A4 :  Letter dated 12.08.2014 sent by the 1^st opposite party

        to the complainant. 

A5 :  E.mail letter issued by the opposite parties. 

A6 :  Photocopy of interim statement from 07.12.2007 to 19.11.2014. 

A7 :  Photocopy of the fund summary dated 13.04.2015. 

A8 :  Advocate notice dated 22.01.2015 issued by the complainant

         to the opposite parties.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil

                                                                                           (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Mrs. Sarala Bhai. B, Janardhana Vilas, Anandappally.P.O.,

                   Adoor, Pathanamthitta – 691 525.

     (2) M/s. HDFC Standard Life Insu. Co. Ltd.,

                   Regd Office: Lodha Excelus, 13^th Floor, Apollo Mills Compound,

                   N.M.Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400 011.

             (3)  The Branch Manager, HDFC Standard Life Insu. Co. Ltd.,

                   2^nd Floor, Crystal Plaza Branch, M.C.Road, Adoor,

                   Pathanamthitta – 691 523.

             (4)  The Stock File.