Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/355/2018

Radhika & V.Sriram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank & Other - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. Balasubramanian

07 Jul 2022

ORDER

                                                                   Complaint presented on:29.02.2012                                                                      

  Date of disposal :03.08.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT :             THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                           :PRESIDENT

                                      TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,                          : MEMBER-I

                               THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY,B.A.,B.L.,PGDLA.,    :MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.355/2018

 

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 03^rdDAY OF AUGUST 2022

 

1. Radhika

D/o. V. Sriram

 

2. V. Sriram

Both residing at

G5, Madhava Flats,

Door No15,

Madhavan Nair Street,

Krishna Nagar,

Pammal, Chennai-600 075….Complainants

 

•  

 

1. Kotak Mahindra Bank,

Kotak Life Insurance Dept.,

Rep. by its Manager,

Adyar Branch, Adyar

 

2. The Branch Manager Operations,

Kotak Life Insurance,

Cenatoph Road,

Alwarpet, Chennai

 

3. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd.

Rep. by its Manager,

•  

 

Counsel for the complainant                  : Mr. Balasubramanian

                                                          Mr. Ramaratnam

                                                          Mr. Tamil Vinayagam

 

Counsel for the Istopposite party          : Mrs. N. Premalatha

 

Counsel for the 2^nd and 3^rdopposite party      :Ex-parte

 

 

ORDER

THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A.B.L., PGDLA      : MEMBER II

 

          This complaint has been filed by the complainants against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the Opposite parties torefund the deposit amount of Rs.50,000/-, to pay interest @ 12% for the deposit amount, Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, tension, torture etc. and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this complaint.

This complaint was originally filed before the District Commission, Chennai (South) and taken on file in C.C. No. 58/2012.  Thereafter, the said complaint has been transferred to this Commission as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C. and taken on file as C.C. No.355/2018.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainants submits that 2^nd Complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the name of Ist Complainant since she was minor at the time of deposit, with opposite parties under Kotak Easy Growth Plan (with 5 times cover).  Based on the above, the opposite parties issued a proposal deposit receipt voucher No. 05262986 dated 23.02.2008 for Rs.50,000/- in the name of 2^nd Complainant.  The 3^rd opposite party had also issued a letter dated 28.02.2012 to the 2^ndComplainant with policy details i.e. Policy No. 00910550, Kotak Easy Growth Plan (with 5….cover) and client no. 51233450.  According to complainant, it has a clause Free Lock Period and as per this “In case the complainants wish to reconsider the decision to hold the policy, they have the option of returning the original policy to them, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy the opposite parties would refund the premium paid by the complainants after deducting stamp duty, medical expenses and proportionate risk premium for the period of cover.”  Based on this, the complainants surrendered the policy certificate to meet the educational expenditure of Ist Complainant on 07.10.2011 and receipt of the same was acknowledged by opposite parties’ representative namely Mrs. Sriranjani.  The complainants submit that in terms of the condition of policy particularly free lock period the due amount has to be refunded to them but the opposite parties neither refunded the deposit money nor replied to the complaints about the action taken by them.  At the time of surrendering the policy the Ist complainant become major, but the opposite parties insisted to endorse the policy in person by the 2^nd Complainant and the same was done.  Since no action was taken on the opposite party’s side, the complainants sent letters on 21.12.2011 and 27.12.2011. In spite of above letters, there was no response from the opposite parties and hence the complainants have sent a legal notice to all the opposite parties on 24.01.2012.  All the opposite parties have received the notice, but no reply has been received from any of the opposite parties and the complainants have to suffer with mental agony, tension, torture etc.  Hence this complaint.

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF IstOPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

The 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite parties were set Ex-parte.  The Ist opposite party in their written version states that the complaint is not maintainable in law and in facts and there is no lack of services.   They denied all the averments and allegations except those are specifically replied.  The 1^stOpposite party further submits that the allegations are not against them, and the Insurance policy and receipt were issued by 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  The Ist opposite party states that complainants have not availed of any service from them for any consideration, and hence will not come under the category consumer and no negligence or deficiency in service can be attributed against them.  The Ist opposite party puts the complainants to the strict proof  for the averments and allegations contained in para 9,10,11,12,13 and 14 of complaint and they are not aware of the terms and conditions of contract entered between complaints and 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  Hence the Ist opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether there is any deficiency inservice on the part of opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs prayed?  To what extent?

 

The complainants have filed proof affidavit as their evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7are marked on their side.The Istopposite party has filed proof affidavit and no document is marked on his side.2^nd and 3^rdOpposite parties were set Ex-parte.

4.POINT NO :1

Complainants and Ist Opposite party have filed their written arguments.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavitand documents.  According to the complainant, the 2^nd Complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the name of Ist Complainant since she was minor at the time of deposit with opposite parties under Kotak Easy Growth Plan (with 5 times cover).  Based on the above, the opposite parties issued a proposal deposit receipt in the name of 2^nd Complainant and the same is marked as Ex.A1.  The 3^rd opposite party had issued a letter dated 28.02.2012 to the 2^nd Complainant with policy details and same is marked as Ex.A2.  According to complainant, it has a clause Free Look Period and it states “In case you wish to reconsider your decision to hold the policy, you have the option of returning the original policy to us, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy.  We would refund the premium paid by you after deducting stamp duty, medical expenses and proportionate risk premium for the period of cover.”Based on this, the complainants surrendered the policy certificate to meet the educational expenditure of Ist Complainant on 07.10.2011 and receipt of the same was acknowledged by opposite parties’ representative namely Mrs. Sriranjani.  At the time of surrendering the policy, the Ist complainant become major, but the opposite parties insisted to endorse the policy in person by the 2^nd Complainant and the same was done.  Since no action was taken by the opposite parties, the complainant sent a letter on 21.12.2011.  Another letter was also sent on 27.12.2011 and the same is marked as Ex.A3.  Inspite of above letters, there was no response from the opposite parties.  Hence the complainants have sent a legal notice to all the opposite parties on 24.01.2012 which is marked as Ex.A4.  All the opposite parties have received the notice and the acknowledgement cards are marked as Ex.A5, A6 and A7.  No reply has been received from any of the opposite parties and the complainants have to suffer with mental agony, tension, torture etc.

The Ist opposite party in their written arguments contended that the complainant cannot be covered under the definition of Consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act since the complainants have not availed any service from Ist opposite party.  Hence the Ist opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint.

The Ist opposite party in their written arguments contended that the complainant cannot be covered under the definition of Consumer.  As per Ex.A1, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- and as per the terms and conditions of Proposal Deposit Receipt, the amount collected is an interest free deposit to be adjusted towards the premium payable on the life insurance policy.  Hence as per Ex.A1 since the amount was received by 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party through the 1^st opposite party bank the complainant falls under the ambit of Consumer.  Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

5. Point No.2

The complainantshave deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- through instrument No. 000006 dated 18.02.2006.As per Ex.A1 the proposal deposit receipt dated 23.02.2008 for the payment was issued by the 3^rd opposite party in the name of Ist complainant.  As per the terms and conditions of proposal deposit receipt, the amount collected is an interest free deposit to be adjusted towards the first premium payable on the life insurance policy.  As per Ex.A2, the policy No. 00910550 is Kotak Easy Growth Plan (with 5 times cover) and one of the conditions of the policy is “Free Look period  as per which in case the complainant  wish to reconsider your decision to hold the policy, he has the option of returning the original policy to the opposite parties, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy and the premium would be refunded after deducting the stamp duty, medical expenses and proportionate risk premium for the period of cover”.  As per this the premium is refundable only if the policy is surrendered within 15 days from the date of receipt of policy.  Whereas the complainants read this as Free Look period and surrendered the policy on 07.10.2011 as per Ex. A2 after a gap of nearly 4 years. Hence the surrender of policy was not within the free look period as stated in Ex.A2.  The complainants in their written arguments contended that they submitted all the papers to Ist opposite party and they only advised to contact the 2^nd opposite party.  Though as per Ex.A1 the proposal deposit receipt conditions, the amount collected is an interest free deposit to be adjusted towards first premium. Complainants and Ist opposite party have not submitted the full terms and conditions of policy and without knowing the details or conditions like maturity value, benefits, period of insurance, foreclosure and refund etc., it is not possible to conclude that the complainant is entitled for refund of amount onforeclosure. Though it is stated by the complainant in Ex.A4 legal notice that he has right foreclose the policy after expiry of 3 years from the date of policy there is no proof to support such contention though it is alleged that one Sriranjini staff of the 1^st opposite party received the documents and acknowledged the same on 07.10.2011 it is found from Ex.A2 that there is no specific word that original policy was received by the said staff and there is also no designation of the person who acknowledged the same, and further there is no such designation in Ex.A3 also.  Hence no reliance can placed upon Ex.A2 and A3.  As contended by the complainant the Ist opposite party has directed the complainants to approach 2^nd opposite party which is the branch office of 3^rd opposite party and it is the responsibility of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party to act on the policy surrendered by the complainants.  Hence this Commission is of considered view that Istopposite party has no role to play in the transaction between complainant and opposite parties 2 and 3. The complainant failed to prove that the amount paid under Ex.A1 is refundable by filing the terms and conditions of the policy further even the alleged surrender of policy by the complainant to the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties is also not proved by sufficient evidence.  At any event since the policy was surrendered after free look period i.e. within 15 days from the date of receipt of policy and hence on that ground also the complainant is not entitled to claim the amount under Ex.A1 with interest. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

6. Point No.3

            Based on findings given to the Point.No.1 & 2 there is no deficiency in service on the part of  Opposite parties as alleged in the complaint.  Mere non reply to the notice issued by the complainant alone will not amount to deficiency in service.  Hence the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint. Point No.3 answered accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No costs.    

Dictated  by the Member-II to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 03^rdday of August2022.

 

MEMBER – I                   MEMBER II                      PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	23.02.2008	Xerox copy of Opposite parties proposal deposit receipt
Ex.A2	28.02.2008	Xerox copy of Opposite parties Growth Plan Policy
Ex.A3	27.12.2011	Xerox copy of Complainants letter to opposite party-2
Ex.A4	24.10.2012	Xerox copy of Registered with Ack. Legal Notice of Complainants to Opposite parties 1,2&3
Ex.A5		Xerox copy of Ack. Card to Opposite Party 1
Ex.A6		Xerox copy of Ack. Card to Opposite Party 2
Ex.A7		Xerox copy of Ack. Card to Opposite Party 3

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE IstOPPOSITE PARTY

                                                          -NIL-

 

 

MEMBER – I                   MEMBER II                      PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C.C.No.355/2018, Dated:03.08.2022 Order Pronounced, In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No costs.     Member-I     Member-II   President