Haryana

Ambala

CC/49/2015

Gaurav Chauhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

C.L.Chuhan

23 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 49 of 2015

                                                          Date of Institution         : 11.02.2015

                                                          Date of decision   : 23.10.2017

 

          Gaurav Chauhan S/o Shri Sudhir Chauhan, resident of house No.1436,   Sector-9, Urban Estate, Ambala City.

 

……. Complainant.

1.       Kotak Life Insurance, Regd. Office 4^th floor, Vinay Vhavya Complex,                              159-A C.S.T. Road, Kalina Santacrus (E) Mumbai 400-498, through its General Manager/Managing Director.

2.       Kotak Life Insurance, Branch Office at Vikas Vihar, Model Town, Ambala       City, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.

 

 ….…. Respondents.

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                   

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER       

 

Present:       Sh. C.L. Chauhan, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Rajiv Sachdeva, counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the representative of OPs approached the complainant induced him to make investments in a plan of Kotak Life Insurance in 2009 and told the complainant that if he makes investments in Kotak Life Insurance, he would get minimum return 15% to 18% p.a. on the assured amount and the plan would be for 20 years and can be surrendered after 3 years and the complainant would get his deposited amount alongwith interest as mentioned above and just to make the plan lucrative, the person of OPs told the complainant that to minimize the market risk some amount of the plan will not be invested in the market and the OPs will pay assured return on that amount. Further submitted that the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- initially through a cheque and thereafter paid two more installments of Rs.50,000/- each. Further submitted that the agent of OPs again approached the complainant in March 2010 with investment plain in a policy which was better than the earlier one and took Rs.1,47,000/- in three installment of Rs.49,000/- each and assured the complainant that he would positively get 18% p.a. return on the assured amount. The policies given to the complainant were bearing No.1855494 known as Kotak Super Advantage and policy bearing No.01754990 known as Kotak Smart Advantages, lateron after a fornight or so after receiving the payment form the complainant. Further submitted that in April, 2012, the complainant surrendered his above said polices to get his assured amount alongwith assured return of 15% to 18% p.a. but the complainant shocked to find that a sum of Rs.1,01,924.41/- were transferred to his account in lieu of the policy for which he deposited approximately Rs.1,50,000/- for the first policy and received only Rs.94,999.77p/- for the second policy for which he paid Rs.1,47,000/- and the OPs did not return even the deposited amount of the complainant what to talk interest @ 15% to 18% p.a.. As a matter of fact, the representative of Ops while convincing the complainant to invest in their plan misrepresented and concealed the contents, consequences of the insurance policies which they were going to issue him later on. Feeling cheated by misrepresentation by the agent of OPs, the complainant contacted the officials of OP No.2, but they gave evasive reply which were not satisfactory at all and the complainant told the officials of OPs that their agent misguided him by making him to believe that he would certainly get 15% to 18% return on his assured amount, then they did not issue and hand over the polices to the complainant at the time of taking money from him, resultantly in concealment of contents and result of policies, if the policies are surrendered before time. Moreover, the complainant being a simpleton can not understand the technical language used in the policy by the company which was supplied, thus the OPs adopted unfair means and used unfair trade practice. The OPs have not provided satisfactory services which they were liable to provide, thus there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of both the Ops.

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written statement submitting that the subject policy bearing No.01935715 has been admittedly issued on dated 31.03.2010. However, the instant complainant has been filed in the year 2015 whereby the complainant has alleged that the subject policy is an outcome of the mis-selling which purportedly caused during the issuance of the policy. Further submitted that OPs had received a duly filled and signed proposal forms along with the duly filled & signed benefit illustrations from the complainant for issuance of Life Insurance Policy on his life under Kotak Super Advantage Plan and as per the clause No.3 of the proposal forms, the policy holder had voluntarily and admittedly opted for the policy terms of 20 years & 15 years as mentioned above, alongwith the premium payment terms to be of Full Policy terms and the frequency of premium payment to be yearly under the said policies. Further submitted that the allegation with regard to entitlement of 15-18% minimum return on the assured amount and also the same upon surrendering after span of 3 years, is contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy as the complainant is only entitled for the benefits as per the terms and conditions of the policy and it is also apparent that complainant being agreed with the terms and conditions of the policy has paid the first three premiums and also availed the life coverage benefits for the said period. Further submitted that the subject policy has been sourced by Vighnaharta Direct Insurance Broking ltd and Insurance Broker is an independent entity licensed by Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority (IRDA), who advise their customers on their insurance needs and thereafter arrange insurance policies from any insurance company as per their own judgment and as per the customer’s choice. Further submitted that the said policy in question were purely market based polices being Unit Linked Plan and as per the product specification, there i9s no assured guaranteed return in the policy based market risk and the same depends upon the volatility of the market. Further submitted that the OP company being a service provider immediately after in receipt of surrender request from the complainant had processed for disbursement of surrender value and the OP within a reasonable time, had credited an amount of Rs.2,00,299/- in the bank account of the complainant as per the available fund value after deducting the surrender and other relevant charges and after payment of the surrender value. So, the complainant is not at all entitled to get any amount and whatever is admissible to the complainant and same has already been disbursed to the complainant by the OPs and has prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 3                To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-6 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Ops have also tendered affidavit as Annexure R-X alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-6 and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                The case of the complainant is that the complainant had obtained two polices bearing No.1855494 known as Kotak Super Advantage and policy bearing No.01754990 known as Kotak Smart Advantage and the plan would be for 20 years and can be surrendered after 3 years alongwith interest of 15% to 18% p.a. while surrendering the policies and the complainant paid three installments of Rs.50,000/- each and Rs.49,000/- each. The complainant surrendered his above said polices on 05.07.2013 to get his assured amount alongwith assured return of 15% to 18 p.a. but the OPs had transferred a sum of Rs.1,01,924.41p to his account in lieu of the policy for which he deposited approximately Rs.1,50,000/- for the first policy and received only Rs.94,999.77p for the second policy for which he paid Rs.1,47,000/- and the OPs did not return even the deposited amount of the complainant alongwith interest 15% to 18% p.a.

                   On the other hand, counsel for OP has argued that the OP had received a duly filled and signed proposal form alongwith the duly filled & signed benefit illustrations from the complainant issuance of Life Insurance Policy on his life under Kotak Super Advantage Plain & Kotak Smart Advantage Plan and as per the clause No.3 of the proposal form, the policyholder had voluntarily and admittedly opted for the policy terms of 20 years & 15 years alogwith the premium payment term to be of full policy terms and the frequency of premium payment to be as yearly under the said polices (Annexure R-1 and Annexure R-2). The complainant had requested for paying the surrender value and fill up the surrender form Annexure R-4 on 05.07.2013 and OPs had accordingly accepted the request of the complainant and released the surrender value amounting to Rs.94999.77/- under the policy bearing No.01855494 & Rs.1,01,924.41/- under the policy bearing No.01754990 in the account of the complainant. Counsel for Ops further argued that the allegation with regard to entitlement of 15- 18% minimum return on the assured amount and also the same upon surrendering after span of 3 years, is contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy as the complainant is only entitled for the benefit as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Counsel for OPs has further argued that the complainant had himself applied for surrender value after span of 3 years as per the policy.

5                 In view of above discussion, it is clear that the complainant had applied for the surrender of his policies on 05.07.2013 and the OPs released the surrender value amounting to Rs.94999.77/- under the policy bearing No.01855494 & Rs.1,01,924.41/- under the policy bearing No.01754990 in the account of the complainant.  There is no dispute regarding calculation of the surrender value/fund value as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The OPs had already been paid the fund value to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of polices and same amount has been received by the complainant as admitted in the complaint. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complainant is not entitled any other amount as claimed in the prayer clause. Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :23.10.2017                                  (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

    

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                            Member

 

 

              (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                            Member