By: Miss. R.K.Madanavally, Member
The complainant's case in brief is as follows.
In 2008 one person, whose name is not disclosed by the complainant, approached the complainant and induced him to deposit money with the opposite party and made him believe that they would give interest than the banks. The above person introduced himself as the employer of the opposite party's bank. By believing the words, the complainant had deposited three yearly installments of Rs. 60,552 with a grand total of 1,81566 in the name of his son Shameem Jabir. At the time of deposit, the above said person made the complainant believe that, after 3 years deposit, the complainant can withdraw the amount if he wishes.
After the completion of 3 years, the complainant approached the opposite party and it was informed by them that they will give back only two years installment amount and they will charge the allocation charge for the same also. Hence the complainant alleges deficiency in service upon the opposite party and hence this complaint. According to his complaint, he is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 181566 from the opposite party.
The opposite party appeared and filed version by denying the entire arguments/allegations in the complaint. They challenged the jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain the complaint. More over it is asserted by the opposite party that there existing no consumer relationship between the complainant and the opposite party and the case of the complainant itself is concocted story and so the same is liable to be dismissed.
The opposite party contented that the complainant was satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy as he was approached the opposite party after the expiry of 'free look' period ie, after the expiry of 15 days form the receipt of the policy documents. Opposite party had admitted the deposit if 3 installments amounting to a total of Rs. 181566/-. During the above 3 years the complainant had not raised any complaint against opposite party. According to opposite party as it is a contract between the insurance company and policy holder, the complainant is bond to comply the terms and conditions of the policy. The total term of the policy was 15 years.
On 6/7/12, after the expiry of almost 2 years the complainant vide letter dated 3/7/12 requested the opposite party to surrender the policy, which was received by the opposite party on 6/7/12. In accordance with the claim 2.4 and 17.1 of the policy terms and conditions, the opposite party had refunded the surrender value of Rs. 111776.61 to the complainant's account through NFT transaction. So, according to opposite party, they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. Further, it was submitted by the opposite party that, if the complainant was not satisfied with the policy terms and conditions he should have approached the company for cancellation of the policy during the free look period. The company has acted only as per the terms and conditions of the policy.
The opposite party had not appoint any employee for the purpose of canvasing policy. According to the opposite party, the complainant himself approached the company for a policy and thus the policy in question was issued to the complainant.
Now the points are to be answered in question are:
1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get and amount of Rs. 181566/-?
2. Whether opposite party is deficient in service?
3. If so relief and costs if any?
Point No 1 to 3
Both the complainant and opposite party admitted the deposit of money. For prooving the case of the complainant, Ext.A1, the policy certificate was produced opposite party had adduced Ext. B1 to B4 including the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant was examined as PW1.
After the period of 3 years ie, on 3/7/12, a request for the withdrawal was made by the complainant and the opposite party had refunded the surrender value for an amount of Rs. 1,11,776.61.
According to the complainant, the above said amount is less than the two installment amount made by him. He is entitled to get back his one installment amount and there for the complainant alleges deficiency in service upon the opposite party. The oral testimony of the complainant also proves the same.
….ഞാന്‍ അവിടെ പോയപ്പോള്‍ കുറെ സ്ഥലത്ത് ഒപ്പിടാന്‍ പറഞ്ഞു. വായിച്ചു തന്നിട്ടില്ല. പോളിസി തുടരാന്‍ താല്പര്യം ഇല്ലെങ്കില്‍ പിന്‍ മാറാന്‍15 ദിവസത്തെ സമയം ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു അതിനെപ്പറ്റി എനിക്കറിയില്ല. പോളിസിയെ സംബന്ധിച്ച് എല്ലാ രേഖകളും യഥാ സമയം തന്നെ നിങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് തന്നിരുന്നു എന്നു പറഞ്ഞാല്‍ എനിക്ക് ബോധ്യപെടുത്തിത്തന്നിട്ടില്ല. പോളിസി സംബന്ദമായ എല്ലാ കാര്യങ്ങളും opposite party നിങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് പറഞ്ഞു തന്നിരുന്നു എന്നു പറഞ്ഞാല്‍ ശരിയല്ല.
Thus nothing was brought out infavour of the opposite party through the oral evidence adduced by the complaint.
It is crystal clear that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs. 181566/- out of which an amount of Rs. 111776.61 was refunded to the complainant after the completion of 3 years. On going though the oral as well as the documentary evidences, it reveals that an a mount of Rs.69779.39 was remaining as balance towards the complainant. The above amount is not a small amount. There we find the deficiency in service by opposite party. At the same time opposite party is relying upon the Ext.B1 which is their policy condition. It is not possible for a prudent man to read and under stand the entire policy condition which were written in a very small letter, at the time of joining in a scheme. The learned counsel for the opposite party very vehemently argued and pointed out the decision held in Reliance Life Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Madhavacharya. We are also in the same path and we are opposing the tendency of certain private banking systems. Because some banks are issuing new schemes by offering some advantages to depositors and thereby the poor depositors were being cheated. This tendency has to be stopped. The technicality of terms and conditions should not ruin the structure of a beneficial legislation. If it is so the concept of CP Act will itself be a failure. So to meet the ends of justice, we are of the opinion that opposite party shall pay an additional amount of Rs. 25000/- to the complainant. By the balance amount , opposite party can adjust it with their all other charges including allocation charges for a period of 3 years.
Hence we order that, opposite party shall return an additional amount of Rs.25000/- to the complainant with in one month from the date of receipt of this order, Failing which opposite party shall also be liable to pay an interest at 12% from the date of filing of the complainant. No order as to cost.
Dated this 28th day of April , 2014
Sd/-
K.MOHAMMED ALI , PRESIDENT
Sd/-
R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER
Sd/-
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1
PW1 : Complainant, P.K.Kunhimohammed.
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1
Ext.A1 : Policy certificate
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1 to B6
Ext.B1 : Policy Document
Ext.B2 :
Ext.B3 : Proposal form issued by opposite party
Ext.B4 : Policy Product Features chart
Ext.B5 : Payout Request for surrender /Partial withdrawal
Ext.B6 : Statement of Account.
Sd/-
K.MOHAMMED ALI , PRESIDENT
Sd/-
R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER
Sd/-
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
