Act for an order directing the opposite party to accept the request of the complainant to surrender the policy and to pay ` 1,50,000  with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the complaint.

          The case of the complainant in brief are as follows:  Complainant was a subscriber of Unit Linked Pension Scheme of opposite parties.   Yearly premium was `50,000.  While enrolling it was ensured that no reduction will be made in the fund value after a period of 3 years.  Revival letter of 11.08.2009 and confirmation of revival letter of 22.06.2010 would show that complainant had paid a total of `1,50,000 in 3 years period.  Since complainant wanted to surrender the policy she approached opposite party but she was told that substantial amount will be reduced in case the policy is surrendered.  But they did not mention any reason.  Lawyer notice was sent to both opposite parties but did not sent any reply.  Hence complainant is constrained to file the complaint.

          Opposite parties appeared and filed version denying the material allegations of the complainant, which is briefly stated as follows :  Opposite parties are liable only in accordance with the terms and conditions of policy.  The complainant did not give request for surrendering the policy.  Where there is a request for surrendering the policy, the policy will be surrendered and the refund value will be refunded to the complainant.  The surrender charges is determined by the opposite parties.  These opposite parties are ready and willing to refund the policy after deducting all the charges payable by the complainant.  The opposite parties replied dated 30.08.2011 to the notice sent by the complainant.  There is no deficiency on the part of opposite party.  Hence to dismiss the complaint.

          On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1.     Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party?

2.     Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed in the complaint?

3.     Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence of Ext.A1 to A9 on the side of complainant and Ext.B1 and B2 on the side of opposite party.

Issues No.1 to 3 :

          Admittedly complainant was a subscriber of Unit Linked Pension Scheme `50,000 per annum is the premium and the terms of scheme is 10 years.  The case of the complainant is that he was promised that no reduction would be made in the fund value after a period of 3 years.  He had remitted three years premium and thereafter he wish to surrender the policy.  But when enquiry was made 1^st opposite party informed him that substantial portion of the amount will be reduced.  Lawyer notice was sent thereafter demanding return of amount.  Opposite party contended that they are ready to refund the policy according to terms and conditions.  Husband of the complainant adduced evidence by way of chief affidavit.  He has adduced evidence that the complainant was assured that after remitting three years premium, policy can be surrendered at any time without deducting any amount.  But after three years when complainant approached opposite party he was told that a good portion of amount would be reduced.  But they did not explain the reason for such a deduction.  They did not also send reply for the lawyer notice.  Ext.A2 is the policy conditions which provides that policy may be surrendered at anytime after three years.  It is further stated that the amount payable on surrender would be the unitized Fund value arrived at after deduction of the surrender charge as specified in the schedule of charges.  It is also included in the same condition that the surrender charge will be determined by the company at their direction.  Nowhere in the policy condition it has been stated the policy can surrender without deduction.

          PW1 in affidavit evidence specifically alleged that the complainant was assured 1^st opposite party that the policy could be surrendered without deduction after three years.  He was also cross examined for opposite party elaborately.  He has deposed in cross examination that “3 sImÃw AS¨p Ignªm henb kwJy Xncn¨p In«psa¶mWv R§sf [cn¸n¨Xv.”  There is no need to disbelieve this evidence until and unless rebutting evidence is given by opposite party.  PW1 further deposed that “ss]k Bhiys¸«v Rm³ OP No.1sâ office t]mbncp¶p.  At¸mÄ \à kwJy Ipd¡psa¶p ]dªp. Letter sImSp¯nÃ.  ss]k t\cn«v Bhiys¸«XmWv.  FgpXnsImSp¡Wsa¶v AdnbnÃ. Request FgpXnsImSp¡m³ OP No.1sâ office \n¶v Bhiys¸«n«nÃ.  Request sImSp¡m¯Xn\memWv ss]k XcmªXv F¶p ]dªm icnbÃ.  h¡o t\m«okn\v I¼\n adp]Sn Ab¨n«nÃ.”  This evidence reveals that PW1 approached 1^st opposite party for the amount.  He has not given written request.  PW1 deposes that written request was not given since they were not aware of the fact that such a written request was necessary.  He is also alleges that he was not advised to give such written request.  It has to be taken into account that opposite party did not entered into box to say that this evidence given by PW1 is wrong.  Moreover, no evidence produced by opposite party to show that they have sent reply to lawyer notice sent by complainant.  In version opposite party contended that they have sent reply to complainant .  If that was done the postal acknowledgment and copy of the reply notice would have been produced to prove the same.  The cover and the letter produced by the opposite party.  Ext.B2 cannot be believed to be true. The very face of the cover without any seal of the Postal Department only shows a clever tactics of creating false evidence that depicts the real colour of opposite party how did they defeat their consumers without looking left and right.  Without postal receipt or acknowledgment it cannot be believed that opposite party has sent such a reply to complainant’s lawyer notice.  Non reply of lawyer notice is a clear deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  That also reveals opposite party has no intention to guide and advise the subscriber /consumer in a proper way.  Opposite parties could have informed the complainant to submit such written request to surrender the policy at least after getting the lawyer notice.  PW1 might have been approached 1^st opposite party.  In the ordinary course of dealings there is every possibility of such an enquiry and that is only a usual practice of our common people.  One thing is certain that the request of complaint to surrender the policy brought before the opposite party by means of lawyer notice.  That is an admitted case.  But what is done by opposite party.  Opposite party cannot say that they have no obligation to sent reply or say terms and conditions do not impose liability to sent reply.  It only reveals that opposite party is not so much of interested to help the aggrieved consumer to get redressed. In other words opposite party is least interested towards the grievances of the complainant.  The hard earned money of the consumer/complainant has no value before them.  This is a cruel situation and if it is left ignored we fear, that will amount to grave injustification especially on the background of attempt to create false evidence.  Hence we hold that there is deficiency on the part of opposite party in treating the consumer/complaint and thereby liable for compensating for the sufferings of the complainant.  Opposite party did not even mind to come forward and adduce rebutting evidence.  That is the way of approach of the opposite party. It can be assumed very well that they have taken least interest to deal with grievances of the complainant.  This degradation can only be met with apposite measures by way of compensation, which we feel that opposite parties shall be ordered to pay the entire amount paid by the complaint `1,50,000 (One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) to complainant without any sort of deduction eligible or not.  Opposite party has to suffer the probable loss of such benefit out of deduction.  Since there is deficiency in service on their part.  Hence the issues No.1 to 3 are answered in favour of complainant and order passed accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay back complainant `1,50,000 (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) to complainant without any deduction within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to get also interest @ 12% from the date of filing of this complaint till the date of payment.  Complainant is also entitled for `1000 (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this litigation.  Complainant is at liberty to execute the order after the expiry of 30 days as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

          Dated this the 28^th day of September, 2012.

                           Sd/-                      Sd/-               Sd/-

                       President               Member          Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.  Receipt dated 27.05.2008.

A2.  Policy

A3.  Renewal letter dated 11.08.2009.

A4.  Renewal premium receipt dated 22.06.2010.

A5.  Copy of notice on behalf of complainant.

A6.  Acknowledgment by 1^st OP.

A7.  Acknowledgment by 2^nd OP

A8.  Receipt of remittance of 50,000 dated 01.08.2009.

A9.  Receipt dated 21.06.10.

Exhibits for the opposite party

B1.  Copy of Policy.

B2.  Reply to legal notice dated 30.08.11.

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Abdul Hameed Haji

Witness examined for opposite party

Nil

      /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT