1. The grievance of the Complainant who has filed this Complaint against the Opposite party is that he is an ex-military man. The Opposite party making use of that approached him and suggested to take an insurance policy promising that they will offer 3 times the value of the premium paid therefore he paid premium of Rs.1,00,000/- with a hope of making profit. After few months of commencement of the business due to his necessity he decided to get back the amount paid by him from the Opposite party. When he approached the Opposite party who informed him that the premium paid by him was not towards the insurance premium but towards purchasing shares of a company. Then he was shocked to hear it and requested the Opposite party to refund his money but the Opposite party told him that out of the premium paid Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.40,699/- was adjusted towards various purpose of the company and the balance of Rs.59,151.50 only is n his account. Then he got a notice sent to the Opposite party to repay the money and thereby contending that he has been put into unnecessary troubles by the Opposite party has prayed for a direction to the Opposite party to refund his premium amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, loss of income Rs.10,000/-, Rs.5,000/- towards the mental stress, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of interest and general damages of Rs.5,000/- totaling Rs.1,35,000/-. <br /> 2. The Opposite party has entered appearance through his advocate and filed version and stated that the Complainant himself proposed for ‘Freedom Plan’- a unit linked insurance plan vide his proposal dated 25.04.2006 to cover the life of his wife proposing the assured amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with premium paying term of 10 years under yearly mode. Therefore, they accepted a proposal and a policy was issued on 12.04.2007 and the same was sent to the Complainant along with a welcoming letter on 11.05.2006 and same are received by the Complainant on 12.05.2006. It is further contended by him that under welcome letter an option was given to the Complainant in case if he disagreed with any of the terms and conditions of the policy he may give reasons and then could have returned the original policy to them within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy as required under IRDA (Protection of Policy Holders Interests) regulations 2002. In such an event the company shall be entitled to repurchase the units allocated at the unit price prevailing on the business date next following the date of receipt of cancellation request, but the Complainant did not choose to return the policy and continued the same. That while accepting the proposal plan details and allocation charges were explained to the Complainant who opted for it after understanding the same, then the Complainant confirmed by declaring the proposal he had submitted wherein the Complainant had agreed for 100% investment in the growth fund and that allocation charges at 40% for the first policy was chargeable and allocation charges for the subsequent years which are for the second and third year would be 6.50% and 3% only and therefore contended that the complainant without any reasons has opted to get back the premium paid by him. But in such a situation they are entitled to deduct the allocation charges at 40% and after working out all the benefits due to the Complainant as on 29.04.2008 a sum of Rs.72,165.63 is available and to the complainant thereby denying all other allegations and deficiency in service has prayed for dismissal of the Complaint. <br /> 3. In the enquiry into the grievance of the Complaint, the Complainant and one Manjunath has filed affidavit evidence on behalf of the Opposite parties. These parties have filed their affidavit evidence by reproducing what they have stated in their respective Complaint and version. The Complainant has produced the welcoming letter sent by the Opposite party, copy of the policy, a letter he received from the Opposite party and copy of the legal notice he got issued to the Opposite party. The Opposite party has produced the literature of the insurance scheme. Then terms and conditions of unit linked endowment policy. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite parties have caused deficiency in their service in not refunding the entire premium amount paid by him when he sought for refund of it?<br /> 2. To what relief the Complainant is entitled to? <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the negative.<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Point no. 1:- The fact that the Complainant had opted an insurance policy in the name of his wife Smt.Yashoda offered by the Opposite party called as ‘Freedom Plan’ and paid Rs.1,00,000/- as the first premium and the policy was issued to the Complainant with effect from 12.04.2007 is not in dispute. But the allegation of the Complainant that the Opposite parties introduced themselves to him and promised him of assisting him at times of trouble and therefore the Complainant opted for the policy is denied by the Opposite parties and this allegation of the Complainant has not been proved. <br /> 7. The Complainant has further contended that because of his financial problems he opted to discontinue the policy and therefore decided to get back the money from the Opposite parties and when requested for refund of his money the Opposite parties stated to had told him that there is only a sum of Rs.59,151.50 is in the account of the Complainant and the balance out of Rs.1,00,000/- has been spent for other expenditure by the Opposite parties. The Complainant aggrieved by this reply of the Opposite parties has come up with this Complaint. When the Complainant opted to have insurance policy on the life of his wife it was his responsibility to know the terms and conditions of the policy before he give the proposal to the company and that being the case he cannot plead his ignorance of having not understood the terms and conditions of the policies or he was not informed about the conditions of the policy.<br /> 8. The Opposite parties not only in the version, but also in their affidavit evidence have contended that for the first year of the policy they are entitled to charge the insured at 40% as allocation charges and that could be considerably reduced for the next second and third years and thereby relying upon insurance regulatory and development authority Regulations 2002 to justify their action of deducting 40% towards allocation charges. The Opposite parties further placed reliance on the terms and conditions of the policy wherein the unit linked endowment policy at annexure – B of the terms and conditions of the policy provides for charging 40% of the premium amount, if the premium is more than Rs.50,000/- towards allocation charges, the allocation charges for the second and third and subsequent years goes on reducing from 6.50% to 3%. The Opposite parties taking advantage of this conditions claimed to have deducted allocation at 40% from out of the premium amount paid by the Complainant. However, in their version and affidavit have further stated after working out the benefits available to the investment of the Complainant a sum of Rs.72,165.63 is available in the account of the Complainant as on 29.04.2008 which is payable to the Complainant which has been worked out on the market performance. The learned counsel appearing for the Complainant in the course of arguments submitted that the Opposite parties had not explained them the terms and conditions of the policy and they had not sent the terms and conditions of the policy along with a welcoming letter. The counsel for the Complainant also disputed the date of receipt of the welcoming letter, which in our view is not very much material. The fact remains even in the welcoming letter sent by the Opposite parties on 02.05.2006 they had made clear that the insured, the Complainant was at liberty to cancel the policy by giving reason if he disagrees with any terms and conditions of the policy within 15 days after receipt of the welcoming letter. Even assuming that the Complainant received the welcoming letter dated 02.05.2006 at a belated stage. Even thereafter within 15 days from the date of receipt of that letter as indicated in the letter itself could have applied for cancellation of the policy and for refund of his premium amount, but the Complainant did not choose to do so. On the other hand, allowed the policy to participate in the scheme and therefore exercising of the option by the Complainant to discontinue the policy has been done at a belated stage. Therefore, the Opposite parties it is found based on the terms and conditions of the policy have deducted allocation charges and worked out the balance payable to the Complainant. The Complainant has not pointed out any illegality or impropriety on the part of the Opposite parties in deducting the allocation charges, as such we find no materials on record adduced by the Complainant to prove as how the Opposite parties are deficient in their service. As such we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove the allegations of deficiency attributed to the Opposite parties and therefore the Complaint is liable to be dismissed. However the Opposite parties since have offered to pay a sum of Rs.72,165.63 accrued and available in the account of the Complainant, the Complaint shall have to be allowed in part with a direction to the Opposite parties to pay that amount to the Complainant. Here it is necessary to observe if the Complainant had allowed the policy to continue and to participate in the scheme it would have earned and fetched him the benefits of the scheme, but the Complainant has opted to discontinue of the policy will be entitled to a sum of Rs.72,165.63. As the result, we answer point no.1 accordingly and pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed in part.<br /> 2. The Opposite parties are held jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.72,165.63 to the Complainant and therefore direct them to discontinue the policy of the Complainant and ordered to pay that amount within 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall pay interest at 15% p.a. from the date of this Complaint till the date of payment. <br /> 3. Under the circumstances of the case both parties are directed to bear their own costs. <br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br />