Date of filing:23.1.2014
Date of Disposal:27.8.2014
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., PRESIDENT (FAC)
SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THE 27th DAY OF AUGUST, 2014.
C.C.No.29 OF 2014
Between :
Dr.Anantha Rama Krishna Vedantham, S/o Late Dr.V.L.N.Vajipeyaji, Hindu, 45 years, Doctor, Door No.21-10-38, 10th Street, Srinagar, Satyanarayanapraum, Vijayawada – 11. ….. Complainant.
And
1.ING Vysya Life Insurance Company ltd.,Rep., by its Manager, 4th Floor, Hafeez Plaza, Door No.40-1-62, 63 & 64, Near Benz Circle, Bunder Road, Vijayawada – 520 010.
2. Bajaj Capital Insurance Broking Ltd., Rep., by its Manager, Above Mahesh Bank, Near Manorama Hotel, Governorpet, Vijayawada – 520 002.
…....Opposite Parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 22.8.2014 in the presence of Sri D.Ravi Kiran, Advocate for complainant and Sri P.Seshu Mohan, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 remained absent and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble President (FAC) Smt N. Tripura Sundari)
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The averments of the complaint are in brief:
1. The representatives of the 2nd opposite party approached the complainant and explained about the features of ING secured income insurance plus policy and its guaranteed returns. Believing the said representations the complainant subscribed the said policy for a sum of Rs.1,49,850/- and paid a premium of Rs.15,000/- on 8.5.2013. The second opposite party informed that there is a guarantee return of Rs.6,75,000/- on the said policy. Subsequently the complainant received the policy documents from the 1st opposite party and the details of returns as assured by the 2nd opposite party was not mentioned and the complainant enquired about the same. He was informed by the 1st opposite party that the assured returns stated by the 2nd opposite party is not correct. Thereupon the complainant having disagreed with the said policy opted for cancellation and returned the policy documents to the 2nd opposite party on 18.5.2013 with a request to cancel the policy and refund the premium paid by him. The complainant perused the matter with the opposite parties 1 and 2 several times and sent mails to them. The complainant received the mail dated 25.10.2013 from the 1st opposite party stating that they will refund the premium amount after deducting postal charges etc. While so the complainant waiting for refund of the premium amount and he received another mail dated 5.12.2013 from the 1st opposite party wherein it was mentioned that the request of cancellation of policy document has been received by them after free look period and as such the return cannot be entertained. The complainant return the policy document to the 2nd opposite party on 18.5.2013 within the free look period and the refusal made by the 1st opposite party is unjustified and also deficiency in service. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the opposite parties praying the Forum to direct the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant received under the policy along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of payment till realization to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs.
2. The 1st opposite party filed its version and the 2nd opposite party remained absent.
The version of the 1st opposite party is in brief;
The opposite party denied all the allegations of the complaint and submitted that the complainant had submitted proposal form for life insurance policy with the 1st opposite party on 8.5.2013 proposing for ING secured income insurance plus plan. The features of the above mentioned plan was duly explained in detail and only after understanding the same in its entirety, the complainant had taken the said policy. The premium opted by the complainant was R.15,000/- to be paid semi-annually, for a term of seven years and sum assured is Rs.1,49,850/- for tenure of 15 years. The complainant had confirmed these facts in his declaration made in the proposal form dated 8.5.2013. Based on the answers, statements, premium amount, premium paying term opted and declarations made in the proposal form duly executed and submitted by the complainant and the opposite party had issued a policy bearing No.02687673 on 8.5.2013 along with terms and conditions of the policy were sent on 11.5.2013. The complainant received the same on 26.7.2013. The policy holder is at liberty to review the terms and conditions of the policy and as an option to cancel the policy by stating the reason within 15 days of receipt of the said policy bond. In such a case the company shall refund the premium received for this policy after deducting the proportionate risk premium for the period of risk cover and expenses incurred by the company on account of medical examination and on stamp duty charges. The complainant never raised any objection to the terms and conditions thereof within 15 days of the receipt of the policy document. Therefore the complainant as such is legally estopped from disputing the terms and conditions of life insurance after the opposite party performed its part of contract by covering the risk of the life, of the life insured i.e., substantial period from the date of commencement of the policies till date. On 10.7.2013 the opposite parties received a request from the complainant i.e., after 2 months of issuance of the policy document to change of address and other typo errors. He submitted the address change form and aadhaar card to opposite party. On receipt of the said request the opposite party has changed the address cover records and other records and communicated the same vide letter dated 15.7.2013. On 26.7.2013 the complainant has approached the opposite party and submitted that he was not satisfied with the service and demanded to cancel the policy. On 27.7.2013 the opposite party received the free look cancellation form for said policy by the complainant. On receipt of the same the opposite party replied to the complainant that all the errors are rectified and the same was communicated to the complainant on 15.7.2013 within time limit and as per the protection of policy holders interest. As the complainant submitted the cancellation request to the opposite party beyond the free look period the same was not entertained. The complainant once again approached the opposite party with fresh allegation stating that the policy was mis-sold to him and in this regard the complainant has submitted the free look cancellation request form dated 4.11.2013 which was duly replied by the opposite party for letter dated 19.12.2013 clarifying the policy was issued based on the proposal form dated 8.5.2013 which was duly attested by the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on behalf of the opposite party towards the complainant and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
3. On behalf of the complainant he gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 and on behalf of the 1st opposite party Sri Chetan.P. General Manager and Legal gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.6.
4. Heard and perused.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant in not refunding the premium amount paid by the complainant?
2. If so is the complainant entitled for any relief?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
POINTS 1 AND 2:-
6. On perusing the documents on hand the complainant says that on the representations of the 2nd opposite party about the features of ING secured income insurance plus policy and its guaranteed returns, the complainant believing the said representations he subscribed the said policy for a sum of Rs.1,49,850/- and paid a premium of Rs.15,000/- on 8.5.2013 and got receipt Ex.A.1 for the same from the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party informed that there is guarantee returns of Rs.6,75,000/- on the said policy. Subsequently he received the policy bond Ex.A.5 from the 1st opposite party and the details of returns as assured by the 2nd opposite party was not mentioned in it. He enquired about the same and was informed that the assured returns stated by the 2nd opposite party is not correct. Thereupon the complainant opted for cancellation and returned the said policy documents to the 2nd opposite party on 18.5.2013. Ex.A.2 letter dated 9.10.2013 written by one G.Sravanthi to the 1st opposite party on behalf of the 2nd opposite party evidences the same. The complainant sent mails to opposite parties 1 and 2 to refund the premium amount. The complainant received E-mail dated 25.10.2013 from the 1st opposite party under Ex.A.3 stating that they would like to inform that the postal charges will be deductable from the premium amount which the complainant paid remaining amount shall be paid to him. The complainant received another mail dated 5.12.2013 from the 1st opposite party under Ex.A.4 informing him that the policy was issued on 8.5.2013 and it was delivered to complainant on 11.5.2013. They had received the request of the complainant for cancellation on 27.7.2013 which is 59 days out of FLC period. Their grievance officer informed the complainant on 14.8.2013 that they will not be able to consider the request of the complainant for cancellation since the policy is out of free look period and the complainant agreed to continue with the policy.
7. The 1st opposite party says that only after understanding the features of the policy the complainant had taken the said policy Ex.B.1 = Ex.A.5 after paying the premium. The complainant had confirmed these facts in declaration made in the proposal form dated 8.5.2013. Along with policy the terms and conditions were sent on 11.5.2013 and he received the same. On 10.7.2013 the 1st opposite party received a request from the complainant to change of address and typo errors under Ex.B.3 dated 10.7.2013. On 26.7.2013 the complainant sent a letter EX.B.4 to the opposite party to cancel the policy. On 27.7.2013 the 1st opposite party received free look cancellation form Ex.B.5 for the said policy from the complainant. The opposite party sent Ex.B.6 dated 19.11.2013 stating that the complainant to a refund of the premium paid, subject only to a deduction of a proportionate risk premium for the period on cover and the expenses incurred by the insurer on medical examination of the proposer and stamp duty charges. Again the 1st opposite party sent a letter Ex.B.2 dated 19.12.2013 to the complainant informing that they are unable to process the cancellation of the policy since policy is out of free look period.
8. The complainant draw our attention to observe general provisions in column No.5 sub Column 5.2 free look provisions that the policy holder shall have a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy document to review the terms and conditions of this policy and if the policy holder disagrees with any of the terms and conditions, he/she has the option to return the policy stating the reasons for the objections upon which the Company shall return the premium paid subject to deduction of a proportionate risk premium for the period of insurance cover in addition to the expenses incurred on medical examination (if any) and the stamp duty charges. All benefits and rights under this policy shall immediately stand terminated at the cancellation of the policy.
The complaint paid the premium on 8.5.2013 and the policy was issued to him by the opposite party as the complainant was not satisfied with the returns on the policy and its terms and conditions, he returned the same to the 2nd opposite party on 18.5.2013 within 15 days of issuing policy. Ex.A.2 evidences the same. The 1st opposite party also agreed under Ex.A.3 to cancel the policy and to refund the premium amount after deducting the postal charges. But the 1st opposite party did not do so till now. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party towards the complainant in not refund the premium amount to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to receive the same.
POINT No.3:-
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the 1st opposite party is directed to refund the premium amount of Rs.15,000/- paid by the complainant after deducting the postal charges with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of return the bond to the 2nd opposite party i.e., 18.5.2013 till date. Time for compliance one month. Rest of the claim of the complainant are dismissed. Claim against O.P.2 is dismissed.
Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 27th day of August, 2014.
PRESIDENT(FAC) MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:-
P.W.1 Dr.Anantha Rama Krishna.V D.W.1 Chethan.P,
Complainant General Manager -Legal
(by affidavit) of the 1st opposite party
(by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Complainant:-
Ex.A.1 08.05.2013 Photocopy of First Premium Receipt.
Ex.A.2 09.11.2013 Letter from the Team Leader of the 2nd opposite party to the
1st opposite party.
Ex.A.3 25.10.2013 E-mail letter from the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A.4 05.12.2013 E-mail letter from the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A.5 . . Booklet containing the insurance policy and terms and
conditions.
For the opposite parties:-
Ex.B.1 . . Photocopy of policy schedule along with terms and conditions.
Ex.B.2 19.12.2013 Letter from the 1st opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.B.3 10.07.2013 Photocopies of manuscript letter, Form for change in communication address and aadhar card.
Ex.B.4 26.07.2013 Photocopy of Letter from the complainant to the 1st opposite party.
Ex.B.5 26.07.2013 Photocopy of cancellation request form.
Ex.B.6 19.11.2013 Photocopy of letter from the 1st opposite party to the complainant.
PRESIDENT(FAC)
