IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President).
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
C.C. No. 231/2011 (Filed on 28.11.2011)
Between:
Thomas Mathew,
Canaan-Tholooparampil,
Thekkemala P.O.,
Kozhencherry, Pathanamthitta. … Complainant.
And:
1. Joseph Mukkaranathu Joseph (Agent)
Mukkaranathu House,
Kumplampoika P.O.,
Pathanamthitta – 689 661.
2. Manager,
Reliance Life Insurance Company,
Trinity Complex (First Floor),
Aban Junction, T.K. Road,
Pathanamthitta. … Opposite parties.
ORDER
SRI. JACOB STEPHEN (PRESIDENT):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that the first opposite party is the agent of the second opposite party and also a friend of the complainant. On 25.01.2010, when the complainant was making preparation for going to Gulf after his vacation, the first opposite party approached the complainant and requested him to pay an amount of ` 1,00,000 for taking a policy of the second opposite party. The first opposite party also promised that the surrender value after 3 years will be based on the Highest NAV Advantage Plan. Accordingly, he paid an amount of ` 1,00,000. But at the time of second premium, i.e. during January 2011, he came to know that the first opposite party enrolled the complainant in a different scheme which is not a profitable scheme. So the complainant attempted to contact the first opposite party to clarify the matter. But the mobile phone of the first opposite party was in a switched off position. Therefore, he made a complaint to the second opposite party’s Regional Manager at Trivandrum on 28.04.2011 stating his dis-satisfaction with a demand for the cancellation of the policy and the return of the principal amount with its interest. While so, after 2 months, he received a reply stating that his claim has been rejected as his claim was received by him beyond the stipulated free look period. The policy documents were delivered to the complainant through a third party by the first opposite party, in the Gulf after 8 months. Therefore, the stipulated free look period could not be met. Moreover, the air way bill referred by the second opposite party in their letter dated 14.06.2011 has not been signed by the complainant. The above said acts of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and is an unfair trade practice which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and the opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for the realization of ` 1,00,000 with its interest from the opposite parties.
3. In this case, both opposite parties are exparte.
4. On the basis of the averments in the complaint, the only point to be considered is whether the complaint is allowable or not?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A4. After closure of evidence, complainant was heard.
6. The Point: The complainant’s allegation is that he had paid an amount of ` 1,00,000 for taking a policy of the second opposite party through the 1st opposite party. But later, the complainant came to know that the first opposite party enrolled the complainant in a different scheme as against the promise given by the first opposite party at the time of taking the policy. According to the complainant, the scheme in which he was enrolled by the first opposite party is not a beneficial scheme. The policy documents were received by the complainant after 8 months from the date of enrolment and hence he noticed the draw backs of the scheme at a later stage. So he issued a notice to the Regional Manager of the second opposite party for canceling his enrolment with a demand for the return of the amount with interest. But they denied the payment by stating that his claim is not allowable as the free look period was expired. According to the complainant, the non-payment of his premium amount by the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and is an unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled to get the amount with its interest.
7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and also produced 4 documents which are marked as Exts. A1 to A4. Ext. A1 is the first premium receipt for ` 1,00,000 dated 29.01.2010 issued by the second opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext. A2 is the policy schedule issued by the second opposite party. Ext. A3 is the copy of the letter dated 28.04.2011 issued to the Regional Manager of the second opposite party by the complainant. Ext. A4 is the reply to Ext. A3, dated 14.06.2011, issued from the Customer Care of the second opposite party.
8. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the complainant, we have perused the available materials on record and found that the complainant had paid an amount of ` 1,00,000 to the opposite parties and they have enrolled the complainant in the Reliance Super Gold Years Term 10 Plan (Regular). According to the complainant, the said enrolment is against his interest and it is against the promise and understanding made between the complainant and the first opposite party at the time of taking the policy and the enrolled policy is not a beneficial scheme and on realizing the draw backs of the said scheme, he demanded for the cancellation of his enrolment and for the return of the amount with interest which was denied by the opposite parties by saying that the free look period was expired. The complainant’s submission is that he got the policy documents after 8 months from the date of enrolment and he came to know about the draw backs of the scheme only after getting the policy documents. Because of the said delay, he could not submit the papers for the cancellation as per the terms of the policy conditions of the second opposite party. Since the opposite parties are exparte, we find no reason to dis-believe the allegations and arguments of the complainant. Therefore, we find that the non-payment of the amount and its interest by the second opposite party is a deficiency in service and is an unfair trade practice and hence second opposite party is liable to the complainant. Since the first opposite party is only an agent of the second opposite party and in the absence of any cogent evidence against the first opposite party, we find no deficiency against the first opposite party and hence he is exonerated from the liability. Therefore, this complaint can be allowed against the second opposite party as prayed for in the complaint.
9. In the result, this complaint is allowed as prayed for, thereby the second opposite party is directed to return ` 1,00,000 (Rupees One lakh only) with 8% interest per annum from 29.01.2010 till this date within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount at the rate of 10% interest per annum till the realization of the whole amount. Complainant is also directed to surrender the policy documents on getting the amount ordered by this Forum.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of January, 2012.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Thomas Mathew.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : First premium receipt for ` 1,00,000 dated 29.01.2010 issued by the
second opposite party in the name of the complainant.
A2 : Policy schedule issued by the second opposite party.
A3 : Copy of letter dated 28.04.2011 issued to the Regional Manager of
the second opposite party by the complainant.
A4 : Reply of Ext. A3 dated 14.06.2011 issued from the Customer Care
of the second opposite party.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Suerintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Thomas Mathew, Canaan-Tholooparampil, Thekkemala P.O.,
Kozhencherry, Pathanamthitta.
(2) Joseph Mukkaranathu Joseph (Agent), Mukkaranathu House,
Kumplampoika P.O., Pathanamthitta – 689 661.
(3) Manager, Reliance Life Insurance Company,
Trinity Complex (First Floor), Aban Junction, T.K. Road,
Pathanamthitta.
(4) The Stock File.
