-::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::
C.C. No.42/2018.
Date of filing: 09.07.2018.
Date of disposal: 31.12.2018.
P R E S E N T:-
(1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, B.A., LL.B.,
President
(2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),
B.A.LL.B.,
Member.
COMPLAINANT/S: 1. Ms.Javeria Kishwar D/o Khan Irshad,
Age:28 years, Occ: House Hold,
R/o H.No.2-4-1, Bawarch galli Old city Bidar.
( By Sri.P.M.Deshpande.,Adv.)
VERSUS
OPPONENT/S: 1) Kotak Life Insurance Corporate and Regd.
Office at 4th Floor, Vinay Bhavya Complex,
159A, CST Road Kalina, Santacruz(E)
Mumbai-400098.
2). Manager, Kotak Life Insurance,
C/o Kotak Mahindra Bank,
Near Old Service Stand Bidar-585401.
(By Sri.Parameshwar., Adv.)
:: J UD G M E N T ::
By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.
The instant case is a from a complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by an Insured against the Insurer alleging deficiency of service. The complainants’ averments are as detailed belont.
2. The complainant had obtained an Insurance policy from the O.P.s vide No.03233750 for a sum assured of Rs.2,42,670/- on 23.05.2015. The yearly premium was at a sum of Rs.20,000/- (excluding service tax and education cess). The duration of premium payment was for a period of ten years, but the policy coverage was for a duration of twenty years. The complainant has paid the due yearly premium for a period of three years, totally amounting to Rs.60,000/- and thereafter, lodged claim before the O.P.s to close the policy owing to financial Constraints. It is the say of the complainant that, though a perfunctory reply was given, the O.P.s have not refunded her deposited amount for which the present complaint.
3. The opponents putting appearance through Counsel have filed their versions. In the versions, the O.P.s claim that, the complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and is gross abuse of process of law. There is no Consumer dispute and no deficiency of service nor the complainant has proved any fault, imperfection, short comings, or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance. The O.P.s further claim that, the complainant was duty bound to read terms and conditions of the policy, which is clear in clause 5 of the policy document. It is further stated that, the policy has acquired Surrender value and the complainant was duly informed of the same. The opponents in para-4 of the versions state that, refund of premium is not tenable as per the terms and conditions of the Policy document. However, it is mentioned in the same para that, the policy has acquired surrender value as per the terms of the policy documents. Quoting a series of case laws rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and National Commission, The opponents have emphasized that, the element Insurance is a contract between the Insurer and Insured and the terms and conditions Contained therein is binding on the parties. The opponents even though agree that, the policy has acquired surrender value and the same was informed to the complainant, they are not explicit or emphatic, as to what is the surrender value of the policy.
4. Both sides have led evidence and have argued the case elaborately. Documents have been produced by both sides in efforts to substantiate their respective averments.
5. Considering the rival stands of the parties, the following points arise for our consideration.
- Does the complainant prove deficiency of service in the part of the opponents?
- What orders?
6. Our answers to the points are as detailed underneath.
- In the affirmative.
- As per final orders owing to the following:-
:: REASONS ::
7. Point.No.1: There is no apparent dispute that, the complainant has informed the O.P.s about her choice of closing the policy. The O.P.s in their part vide their letter 23.05.2018 (Annexure.R.3) have informed the complainant either to continue with the policys’ premium payments or surrender the policy to the nearest branch which would facilitate payment of the surrender value. Thereafter, this case was filed before this Forum claiming the payments. Even though, labyrinthic depositions were filed, no attempt has been taken by the opponents either showing their willingness to pay the admissible surrender value and settle the case. The appearance of the O.P. was sporadic and with hiccups. Even the suggestions of the Forum to either spell out the amount payable under the category “Surrender Value” or ensure the appearance of any of the officers of the O.P.s to mention the same have been in vain. Therefore undoubtedly there are traces of deficiency of service in the part of the O.P.s and we answer the point in the affirmative.
8. Point.No.2: In view of the admissions of the O.P.s that, the policy proposed to be closed has acquired the surrender value, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER.
- The complaint is allowed in part.
- The opponents are directed to pay the surrender value of the policy to the complainant/ policyholder;
- The complainant has to approach the nearest branch of the opponents and submit the policy document and other related documents within fifteen days of this order, if not submitted earlier;
- The opponents are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards mental agonies caused and a further sum of Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses;
- Four weeks time granted to comply the order at (b) and(d) above.
(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 31st day of December 2018).
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
Documents produced by the complainant
- Annexure.A- Copy of the proposal form.
- Annexure.B– Copy of the intimation regarding acceptation of policy
without any annexures. - Annexure.C- copy of welcome letter of the opponents
date.23.05.2015 along with schedule of payment. - Annexure.D– Copy of the letter dated nil, intimating certain
amendments made in insurance Act1938. - Annexure.E- Office copy of legal notice date.18.02.2018.
- Annexure.F- Copy of interim reply date.22.03.2018 in response to the
legal notice. - Annexure.G- Copy of the aadhar Card of the complainant.
Document produced by the Opponents.
- Annexure.R.1- Copy of proposal form.
- Annexure.R.2- Copy of the welcome letter along with enclosures
specifying terms and conditions of the policy. - Annexure.R.3- Copy of the letter date.23.05.2018 in the address of
the complainant.
Witness examined.
Complainant.
- P.W.1- Ms Javeria Kishwar D/o Khan Irshad (complainant).
Opponent.
- R.W.1- Shakil Ahmad, Assistant Vice President Legal, Kotak Life
Insurance Company Limited.
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
