D.O.F. 04.05.2011
D.O.O.17.11.2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President
Smt. K.P.Preethakumari : Member
Smt. M.D.Jessy : Member
Dated this the 17th day of November 2011.
C.C.No.142/2011
Sunny Cherian.N.,
Door No.548,
Near Court Road Complex,
Thalassery 670 101 Complainant
1. Smt.Jancy James,
Door No.49/23,
Chettamcoon, Thalassery.
2. Operation Manager,
BAZAZ Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,
V.K.Santha Corner,
Civil Station P.O.
Erinhipalam, Kozhikode. Opposite Parties
(Rep. by Adv.M.Govindankutty)
3. The Chief Managing Director,
BAZAZ Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Reg. office, G.E.Plaza,
Airport Road, Yaravada, Pune 411006.
(Rep. by Adv.M.Govindankutty)
O R D E R
Sri.K.Gopalan, President
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of `30,000 together with cost of these proceedings.
The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: The complainant agreed to subscribe to a Life Insurance Policy of the 3rd opposite party on the persuasion of 1st opposite party for an amount of `50,000 for five year with frequency of half yearly premium of `5,000. He did not get the policy certificate after the payment of 1st premium. It was informed to 1st opposite party and requested to make arrangement to serve the document before the payment of second premium. Though there was assurance he did not get the policy document. 3rd opposite party send reminders that the second and third premium became due. So complainant paid `10,000 towards second and third premium through the 1st opposite party. But policy document was not issued. Complainant approached 3rd opposite party but he was told that the policy document was already dispatched and if not received to apply for a duplicate on remittance of `250. Dissatisfied with the service complainant stopped payment of further premiums. In the meanwhile complainant received a communication from the 3rd opposite party on 7.9.2010 offering ‘special revival’ of the already lapsed policy on payment of outstanding premium dues with 50% waiver on chargeable interest. Complainant contacted opposite parties 1 and 2 and informed his dissatisfaction in not issuing the policy document. Opposite party is liable to issue duplicate document if it is missed in the midway. It is not lost from the complainant. Complainant was not prepared to revive the policy but demanded the return of whatever amount paid by the complainant. Registered notice was issued on 19.11.2010 calling upon to settle the policy with adequate compensation. Opposite party did not settled issue till date. This is only service deficiency.
Pursuant to the notice opposite parties 2 and 3 entered appearance and filed version jointly denying the allegations of the complainant. 1st opposite party remained absent. The brief of the version is as follows: Complaint is not maintainable on the ground of limitation. Complainant has applied for the policy on 5.7.2006. The policy was issued on 13.7.06 and got lapsed during February 2008. The complaint is filed after the expiry of 2 years. The complainant took policy for a sum of `50,000 for duration of 5 years with a frequency of half yearly premium of `5,000. The maturity date of policy is on 5th July 2011. Opposite party dispatched the original policy document on 13.7.2006 along with a letter. The said letter and document received by the complainant. If policy documents are lost there is provision to issue duplicate certificate but the complainant has to apply for it with fees of `250. The complainant paid only `15,000. The opposite party is not liable to pay insurance amount since his policy became ‘Fore closure’. As per the notice condition opposite party is also not liable to return `15,000 to complainant. Complainant is not entitled for any relief. He has not sustained any damage or mental pain. Complainant has not come with clean hands. Hence to dismiss the complaint.
On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite
Parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as
prayed in the complaint?
4. Relief and cost.
The evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1, DW1 and Exts.A1 to A8.
Issue Nos.1 to 4
The first point to be answered is the question related to limitation. Opposite parties contended that the complaint is not maintainable on the ground of limitation. Admittedly complainant subscribed to Life Insurance Policy. The policy was issued on 13.7.06. It is also an admitted fact that complainant took the policy for a duration of 5 years with frequency of half yearly premium of `5,000. The maturity date of policy is on 5th July 2011. The question of limitation arose only after the maturity period. Moreover Ext.A5 special Revival campaign premium details in respect of unit linked type of policy gives special offer a golden chance to get the lapsed policy revived on payment of outstanding premium before 30th September 2010. Complainant is one among the insured entitled for revival of policy. Complainant being entitled for revival of policy he is not totally detached legally from the scheme of policy. The complaint filed on 4.5.11 before maturity period. Hence it can be seen that the complaint has been filed within the statutory period and complaint is perfectly maintainable.
The 2nd question to be discussed is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Complainant’s case is that even after remitting three premiums opposite party did not serve him the policy document. The request for concerned authorities failed to settle the issue and thereby dissatisfied with the service of opposite parties complainant discontinued to remit premium and finally send notice calling upon to return of amount of `15,000 which he had been remitted as premium.
Opposite party on the other hand, contended that opposite party has dispatched the original policy document on 13.7.2006 and the same received by the complainant. If the policy has been lost there is provision to issue duplicate certificate provided application has been made with fee of `250. Opposite party has also admitted that complainant has paid three premiums `15,000.
It can be seen that complainant has remitted three premiums `5000 each and Exts.A1 to A3 receipts obtained from the opposite party. Though opposite party has contended that the original policy document was sent to complainant no supporting evidence has been produced by opposite party. The position taken by the opposite party is that if it is not served up on the complainant, the postal authority should return the same to the sender. It was not returned. So it is presumed that, the policy document was served up on the complainant. Opposite party has also contended that it was subsequently lost from the hands of the complainant. From the contentions of opposite party itself it is clear that opposite party is not sure whether the complainant has received the original policy document or not. It is only a presumption and nothing has been done to make assure that it was delivered to complainant, not even postal enquiry. It has been taken for granted that it has been served to complainant. They have not taken any pain to make assure that it was received by the complainant. If complaint had received the same there would have been endorsement to that effect. Opposite parties had not produced any such evidence to show that it is delivered to complainant. Opposite party has not produced any document to show that they have made enough enquiries with the concerned agency so as to discharge their legal obligation to make assure that the document had been safely reached in the hands of complainant/insured. Anyhow the non production of such document itself cut the root of the contention of opposite parties that the complainant had received the original policy document. Thus it can very well be presumed that if original document is lost, that is not because of any fault on the side of complainant. Since the opposite party failed to prove that they have sent the policy document to complainant opposite party is liable to meet the entire liability out of it.
It is true that complainant has paid only three premium, a total amount of `15,000 complainant discontinued the payment of premium on a justifiable reason of not getting the policy document. The demand of the complainant to get the policy document is a legitimate demand for which opposite party is liable to find a solution. It could have been very well be solved by issuing a duplicate policy. It is quite difficult to understand the spirit of condition which prevented the commanding institution from issuing a duplicate policy so as to protect the best interest of a consumer and to boost the status of the institution. The negative approach of the opposite parties 2 and 3 no doubt amounts to deficiency in service. Hence we are of opinion that opposite parties 2 and 3 are liable to refund `15,000 to complainant. Considering the specialty of situation we are not awarding compensation but complainant is entitled a sum of `1000 as cost of this litigation. Thus the issues 1 to 4 are answered in favour of complainant and order passed accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 2 and 3 to return `15,000 (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) to the complainant together with a sum of `1000(Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this litigation within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 12% from the date of filing of this complaint till realization. The complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection Act.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1 to A3. Premium intimation
A4.Copy of the letter dt.2.5.08 issued by OP
A5. Copy of the Special offer to revival campaign
A6.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OPs
A7.Copy of the letter sent to Postal superintendent
A8. Reply from Postal Superintendent.
Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1.Complainant
Witness examined for the opposite parties
DW1.Changal Prabhath.K / forwarded by order/
Senior Superintendent
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
