Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/480/2013

Amit Gupta s/o Sudhir Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Gupta

10 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

Complaint No. 480 of2013.

Date of institution: 02.07.2013

Date of decision: 10.11.2016

 

Amit Gupta aged about 37 years son of Shri Sudhir Gupta, resident of 677 Gandhi Marg, Jagadhri.

 …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

Kotak Life Insurance, Branch Office Court Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                               …Respondent.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:           Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for complainant.

                        Sh. KK Gupta, Advocate for respondent

ORDER

 

1                      The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased policy bearing No.01160999 under Kotak Retirement Income Plan in the month of July 2008 from the respondent (hereinafter referred as OP) and paid Rs.15,000/-per year for three years and total amounting to Rs.45,000/-. On 05.06.2013, the complainant surrendered the policy and it was assured by the OP that within a period of one week, Fund Value of the policy will be given to the complainant, which comes to Rs.41,938.61/-. On 11.06.2013, an amount of Rs.13,978.14/- was credited by the OP Insurance Company in his account and remaining amount of Rs.27,960.47/- was handed over to the complainant in shape of one cheque bearing No.573567 dated 11.06.2013 in favour of LIC of India” instead in the name of complainant. When the complainant asked about the same from the manager of the Insurance Company, he stated that complainant has to take another policy from the LIC Company. The complainant told him that he is need of money and did not want to take another policy at this time because in case he wants another policy he could not surrender the policy going on with the OP Insurance but the OP refused to make the payment to the complainant. Lastly prayed for directing the OP Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs. 27,960.47 to the complainant alongwith interest and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant; complainant has completely failed to establish even a prima facie case of any deficiency in service by the OP and therefore, the complaint deserves  no other fate than an outright dismissal and on merit it has been admitted that complainant had opted for Kotak Retirement Income Plan with cover for the period of 20 years for the basic sum assured of Rs.3,36,325/- and paid Rs.15000/- towards the first premium  receipt. The OP had issued an insurance policy No.01160999 and had also provided a copy of the proposal form and policy document to the complainant and the same was admittedly received by the complainant. The OP is a life insurance company operating under licence from IRDA. IRDA is a statutory body constituted under the IRDA Act of 1999 and has been set up under an act of the parliament to promote and regulate the insurance sector and also to safeguard the interest of the policy holders. Benefits payable appearing at Page No.4 of the policy document read as follows:

Benefits payable

A. Benefits payable on retirement of the life insured:

i. Normal Retirement

ii. Surrender.

The policy holder may opt for surrender at any time after three years from the date of commencement of the policy (and provided at least three year full years premium are paid) or on the life insured attaining the age of 45 year whichever is later, but not before the Normal Retirement date specified in the schedule. In such a case, this benefit will be equal to fund value less the surrender charge (if any) under the Main Account and the Top Up Accounts. Up to 1/3^rd of the benefit can be taken as a lump sum with the balance to be used a life annuity from the company or any other registered Life Insurer. The policy holder must indicate in writing, the manner in which he/she wishes to take the benefit on or before one month before the date of such surrender.”

The complainant had voluntarily surrendered the insurance policy through a duly filled and signed Surrender Form dated 05.06.2013 and has also admittedly exercised the right of opting the 2/3^rd of the surrender amount to buy a life annuity from LIC. The surrender value towards the policy has also been admitted by the complainant to be Rs.41,938,61/-. The complainant was provided with the cheque in favour of LIC of India being annuity amount of balance of 2/3^rd of the surrender amount and the same was provided to the complainant since the complainant at clause 3 of the proposal form had clearly opted for withdrawal of the 2/3^rd amount under the policy to the complainant through direct credit in his bank account. The OP Insurance Company have acted entirely as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and nothing is due from the OP. The contract of insurance in between the OP and the complainant is binding upto both the parties and the terms and conditions thereof cannot be avoided at the option of either of the parties. No act and conduct of the OP is illegal and arbitrary and has not put the complainant under mental, agony and harassment or amounts to any deficiency in service on the part OP, as alleged and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complainant.

4.                     In support of the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and photocopy of insurance policy as Annexure C-1, photocopy of acknowledgment as Annexure C-2, Photocopy of Cheque as Annexure C-3, photocopy of passbook as Annexure C-4, photocopy of surrendering of policy at the end of revival period as Annexure C-5 and closed his evidence.

5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP Insurance Company tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Shakeel Ahmad, Sr. Manager as Annexure RX, photocopy of proposal form as Annexure R1, photo copy of letter dated 01.08.2008 to complainant as Annexure R2, photocopy of letter dated 28.12.2004 to CEO as Annexure R3, photocopy of surrender Form as Annexure R4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP Insurance Company.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     It is not disputed that complainant purchased Kotak Retirement Income Plan in the month of July, 2008 with Automatic Cover Maintenance (ACM) for the period of 20 years for the basic sum insured of Rs.3,36,325/- and paid Rs.45,000/- ( Rs. 15,000/- x3)  for first three premium against the policy in question. It is also not disputed that in pursuance of proposal form, the OP Insurance Company had issued an Insurance Policy bearing No. 01160999. Further it has also been admitted by the OP Insurance Company that, complainant surrendered the policy on 05^th June, 2013 and at the time of surrendered, the policy in question was having surrender value of Rs.41,938.61/- and out of this amount, an amount of Rs.13,978.14/- has been paid to the complainant on 11.06.2013.

8.                     The only version of the complainant is that the remaining amount of Rs. 27,960.47/-( 41938-13978) was not refunded by the OP Insurance Company to the complainant instead of that OP Insurance Company issued a cheque of Rs. 27,960/- in the name of LIC of India and asked the complainant to get the Insurance Policy of the LIC. The complainant refused to accept the proposal of OP Insurance Company but the OP Insurance Company did not listen the genuine request of the complainant and refused to pay the amount of Rs.27,960.47/- to the complainant which constitutes the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Insurance Company.

9.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs argued at length that since the complainant at Clause 3 of the Proposal Form had clearly opted for withdrawal of 2/3^rd amount  through purchase of annuity offer by LIC of India, hence, the cheque of Rs.27,960.47/- was issued in the name of the LIC. So, there was no deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Insurance Policy and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Insurance Company. It is not disputed that till date, an amount of Rs.27,960.47/- is lying with the OP Insurance Company  i.e. Kotak Life Insurance as neither the complainant opted a fresh Insurance Policy of LIC of India nor he ever filled up any proposal form or complete other formalities to obtained fresh Insurance Policy proposed by the OP from the LIC of India. Meaning thereby that complainant was not ready to obtain fresh Insurance Policy from the LIC of India. We have perused the Para No.2 of the reply of the OP Insurance Company in which an amount of Rs.858.05/- has been charged as surrender charges from the complainant by the OP Insurance Company when the OP Insurance Company has charged surrendered charges then how the OP Insurance Company can compel the complainant to invest his money by way of Insurance Policy of LIC of India. The version of the complainant seems to be genuine that he protested the action of the OP Insurance Company  for not investing the remaining amount in another Insurance Policy of LIC as he has filed the present complaint within a period of  20 days from the collecting of remaining amount of Rs.13,978/-. The version of the OP Insurance Company that complainant himself opted for withdrawal of 2/3^rd amount through annuity offered by the LIC of India has no weight-age as we have perused  the proposal form whereas no such option has been opted by the complainant. Moreover, this proposal form has not been duly proved by filing affidavit of any official of the OP Insurance Company.

11.                   In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that an amount of Rs.27,960.47 has been wrongly withheld by the OP Insurance Company which is still lying with it. Hence, the complainant is entitled to get some relief.

12.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP Insurance Company to refund remaining amount of Rs.27,960.47 to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date i.e. 11.06.2013 when the remaining amount was paid to the complainant. Further, the OP Insurance Company is also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation as well as litigation expenses. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Pronounced in open court:

Dated: 10.11.2016.

                                                                                          (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

                                                                                          DCDRF Yamuna Nagar

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER