PRESENT
Complainant in person.
Opponent by representative Adv. Manasi Kajarekar.
ORDER
(Per- Mr. S. D. MADAKE, Hon’ble President.)
1. The complainant HITESH MERANI filed a complaint against M/S MAHINDRA OLD MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE LTD. for breach of contract and deficiency of service. The Complainant purchased the policy from opposite party on 5th Sept. 2007 on terms and conditions stated in the policy document EXHIBIT-A ( POLICY DOCUMENT) . During continuance of policy as per the terms and conditions of policy the complainant made an application to opposite party for switch over from Guarantee Growth Fund to Guarantee Bond Fund by letter EXHIBIT-B dated 31st Jan,2011 which was received by opposite party on 1st Feb, 2011.
2. The complainant stated that the statement account of opposite party EXHIBIT-C dated 27th Aug,2011 show that company has not given effect to the said switch over elected by Complainant. On the basis of which the present complaint is filed against deficiency of service and breach of contract.
3. The complainant prayed that opponent be directed to refund the fund value without any deduction with compensation as well as cost.
4. The opposite party filed written version on 8.6.2012 and resisted the allegations made in various paras of complaint. The complaint is not maintainable and is barred by limitation. The complainant is commercial entity and services hired are for commercial purpose. The complainant was given free look period but he did not avail the same.
5. The opponent stated that they have not committed breach of the terms of policy. The complainant is not entitle to fund value as on 1.2.2011 or refund of administration charges as well as compensation and cost.
6. The following point arise for our determination.
Sr.No. | | |
1. | Whether opponent is guilty for deficiency in service ? | In the affirmative. |
2. | What order ? | As per final order. |
7. The cause of action to file this complaint arose on 27th Aug, 2011 because the statement of account dated 27th Aug, 2011 shows that the company (respondent ) has not given effect to the switch over elected by the complainant. As the complaint is filed on 24 October, 2011 i.e. within 2 months, hence it is within limitation. The date of issuance of policy 5th September, 2007 cannot be a date of cause of action.
8. The respondent failed to take action as per application of Complainant dated 31 Jan, 2011 to switch over from Guaranteed Growth Fund to Guaranteed Bond Fund, where such switching over is allowed by the terms and conditions of policy.
9. We have carefully perused terms of policy and noted that policy holder has a legal right as per terms of policy to give effect to the switch option by liquidating the units from one fund and buying into units of the new fund.
10. The documents on record clearly indicate that opposite party has failed to act on letter of complainant dated 1.2.2011 for switchover from guaranteed growth fund to guaranteed bond fund. There is no evidence to show that policy was taken for commercial purpose.
11. The failure of opponent to consider application dated 1.2.2011 entitles the complainant to receive fund value as on 1.2.2011. The complainant stated an amount of Rs.50,000/- approximately and not stated specific amount. The opponent is under an obligation to refund fund value due to deficiency in service. The complainant is entitle to lawfully rescind the contract and claim reasonable compensation for failure of opponent to take into consideration letter dated 1.2.2011.
12. The following order would meet ends of justice.
ORDER
1) RBT Complaint No. 500/2011 is partly allowed.
2) The opposite party is calculate the fund value as on 1.2.2011 and pay the same to complainant with interest at the rate of 9 % p.a.
from the date of filing the complaint.
3)The opponent is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- for mental agony and cost of Rs.3000/- to complainant.
4. Copy of this order be sent to both parties.
