Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/297/2014

Mohinderjit Singh Sethi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Harmandep Singh Saini, Adv.

10 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	297 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	09.06.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	10.12.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Mohinderjit Singh Sethi, Senior Advocate, R/o H.No.155, Sector 9-B, Chandigarh.

 

                 ...  Complainant.

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.141-142, 2^nd Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh

 

…. Opposite Party.

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

                                MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

        

 

Argued By:  Sh.H.S.Saini, Counsel for complainant.

Sh.Mrigank Sharma, Counsel for OPs.

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU , MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant, on the assurance of agent of Opposite Party with guaranteed return of minimum 9.5% on his investment on paying Rs.60,000/- per annum for three years, having lock-in period of three years, filled the proposal form and paid Rs.60,000/- regularly for three years (Ann.C-1).  The complainant also paid Rs.270/- as demanded by the Opposite Party. As such, the complainant paid a total sum of Rs.1,80,270/- to the Opposite Party.  After the lock-in period of three years, when complainant requested the Opposite Party for payment, he was shocked to learn that only Rs.1,62,000/- was payable to him.  The complainant agitated the matter and apprised the Opposite Party that the policy was taken with a guaranteed minimum return of 9.5% compounded with quarterly rests per annum like a bank deposit (Ann.C-3).  It is averred that then the matter with taken up with the Insurance Ombudsmen, who passed the order dated 14.11.2012 (Ann.C-4) and observed that it was a case of misrepresentation and followed by misspelling by representative of the company by promising high return which were never stipulated in the policy and it also directed the insured to show the original proposal form, which could not produced by it during the hearing.  It is pleaded that the complainant is entitled to the amount of premium paid with 9.5% compound interest with guaranteed return like a bank fixed deposit. However, the Opposite Party Company did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act of the Opposite Party as deficiency in service. 

 

2]       The Opposite Party filed reply and admitted the issuance of policy in question as well as receipt of three regular premium as alleged.  However, it is denied that the policy was sold by misrepresentation.  It is pleaded that the Insurance Ombudsman was pleaded to pass an award dated 08.11.2012 (Ann.R-1) directing the Opposite Party Company to cancel the subject/disputed policy and refund the complete amount paid with interest @8% from the date of receipt of the complaint i.e. 8.6.2010.  It is also pleaded that answering Opposite Party, as a matter of goodwill gesture and without admitting any liability duly complied with the said award thereby cancelling the subject policy and refund the amount along with respective interest.  In this regard, a cheque amounting to Rs.2,16,765.22/- bearing NO.439554, dated 05.12.2012 was issued to the complainant in pursuance to the compliance of order dated 8.6.2010 of Insurance Ombudsman, with a request to submit requisite documents as mentioned in the letter dated 1.1.2012.  However, despite the receipt of letter, the complainant did not approach the branch office of answering Opposite Party to submit the documents and receive the cheque for the reasons best known to him. Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

5]       The complainant has preferred the present complaint on the ground that he had subscribed for a an insurance policy in the year 2007 and deposited an amount of Rs.1,80,270/- against it in three installments.  The complainant has alleged that at the time of explaining the features of this policy, the agent of the Opposite Party had promised that after a lock-in period of three years, the complainant would be benefited by getting 9.5% interest per annum on the deposited amount and that the agent of the Opposite Party even appended a note on the proposal form to this effect.  The complainant on completion of three year’s lock-in period, preferred to withdraw the amount, but was surprised to learn that only Rs.1,62,000/- was payable to him against the said policy and that the Opposite Party refused to pay him the guaranteed sum along with promised 9.5% interest per annum on three installments of premiums paid by him.  Aggrieved of this action of the Opposite Party, the complainant moved an application before the Ld. Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh, which while observing that the case of the complainant was that of misrepresentation as well as mis-selling of the policy by the representative of the Opposite Party and furthermore, an Award of Rs.1,80,270/- was passed against the Opposite Party while calculating the rate of interest @8% p.a. from the date of receipt of the complaint i.e. 8.6.2010.  The said order was to be implemented in its letter and spirit within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order and was to be intimated to the office of Ld. Insurance Ombudsman about its compliance. 

 

6]       The complainant has claimed that as per the findings of the Ld. Ombudsman, it has been conclusively proved that the case of the complainant involved misrepresentation as well as mis-selling, therefore, he was entitled to the promised amount of refund of premium along with 9.5% interest. As the promised sum of money still alluded him, the complainant has claimed deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, seeking the quoted relief.

 

7]       The Opposite Party while contesting the claim of the complainant, has objected to filing of the instant complaint taking preliminary objection to the effect that the present complaint is time barred as the matter pertains to the year 2010, when for the first time the complainant had raised his grouse and also that the complainant having visited the office of Ld. Ombudsman, from where an order was passed in favour of the complainant and therefore the matter stood settled, but however, the complainant himself not having received the awarded amount, as per the order of the Ld. Ombudsman, dated 8.11.2012 and having failed in completing the documentary formalities, cannot claim any relief from this Forum.  Thus, praying for dismissal of the complaint qua it. 

 

8]       We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by the parties and are of the view that since the deposit of all the three installments by the complainant between 2007 to 2010, the entire amount still remains in the custody of the Opposite Party and furthermore, the rights of the complainant to pursue his complaint before the Consumer Forum, as envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, being an additional remedy, this Forum has the jurisdiction over this complaint and also that the present complaint is not time barred and deserves to be dealt with on merits. 

 

9]       The complainant has alleged that the representative of the Opposite Party while explaining the features of the insurance policy in question, had promised and guaranteed him returns of 9.5% interest per annum on the deposited amount after the lock-in period of three years, the complainant had diligently paid all the three premiums in time.  But however, on the enquiry about the payable amount in the year 2010, was shocked to know that only an amount of Rs.1,62,000/- was payable, whereas, as per the promised & guaranteed 9.5% interest, the same would have been much more, than what was being offered to him. 

 

10]     It is admitted by the Opposite Party that the matter raised in the present complaint was adjudicated upon by the Ld. Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh and while giving its observations about the misrepresentation and mis-selling of the policy, a direction of grant of interest at the rate of 8% per annum, was awarded on the amount lying deposited with the Opposite Party to be calculated from the filing of the complaint before the Ld.Ombudsman i.e. 8.6.2010. 

 

11]      The Opposite Party has also placed on record a cheque amounting to Rs.2,16,765/- dated 5.12.2012 in the name of the complainant along with a letter of even date declaring that the Opposite Party had received a cancellation request of the policy in question within the free look period and the commencement date of the policy was 3.3.2007.  the Opposite Party has also placed on record Ann.R-2, which is wrongly dated as 01/01/2012 and the same should have been 01/01/2013 as this letter discloses the Award of the Ombudsman dated 08.11.2012 in pursuance of which it had demanded few documents from the complainant, so as to complete the process of refund of premium in pursuance of the orders of Ld. Ombudsman, dated 08.11.2012. 

 

12]      From the contents of Ann.R-1 and Ann.R-2, it is abundantly clear that the Opposite Party has admitted the receipt of cancellation of the policy within free-look period and the date of issuance of the policy is 3.3.2007, therefore, the premium deposited by the complainant was to be returned promptly without causing any loss to the complainant on the interest so generated on his deposited amount. 

 

13]      It is also necessary to quote here that as the Ld. Ombudsman has categorically mentioned in its findings about the mis-selling and misrepresentation of the policy in question to the complainant, therefore, the complainant is entitled to the same rate of interest i.e. 9.5% per annum as promised by the representative of the Opposite Party, for the reason that for all acts & omission and commission, of its authorised representative, the Company is vicariously liable as per settled law. Hence, the claim of the complainant of 9.5% interest per annum on the deposited amount is held to be just & fair.  The act of the Opposite Party in not making good the payment and still withholding the same, since the respective dates of their deposits, amounts to deficiency in service on its part.

 

14]     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua Opposite Party. The Opposite party is directed as under;_

i)  To refund the premium amount to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum from the respective dates of deposit, till it is paid.

ii) To pay a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite party; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum, on the amount mentioned in sub-para (i) from the respective dates of deposit till it is paid, as well as on the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- from the date of filing of this complaint till it is paid.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

10^th December, 2015

                                                                             Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

Om                                                                                                                       

 

 

                        Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

                                                                        MEMBER 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.297 OF 2014

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 10th day of December, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Party.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Priti Malhotra)
Member	President	Member