IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Saturday, the 29^th   day of April, 2017.

Filed on 12-05-2015

Present

1. Smt. Elizabeth George  (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier  (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)

in

C.C.No.141/2015

between

Complainants:-                                                 Opposite parties:-

Sri. Anilkumar PKotak Mahindra Old Mutual

Prayar North POBranch Office, Kollam.

Alappuzha Dist.690 527

(By Adv. Happy Aravind)(By Adv.C.Parameswaran)

O R D E R

          SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE(PRESIDENT)

The case of the complainant is as follows:-

The complainant purchased a Unit Linked Life Insurance Policy through the ‘PSS’ agent for a term of 10 years from 25/04/2008 to25/04/2018.  As per the information given by the companies Life Insurance Advisor on 25/04/2008 is started the policy by paying Rs.99,900/- as yearly installment.  2^nd year installment for the policy was also paid in time.  After the payment of 2^nd installment premium no intimation or no notice for renewal or status was received to complainant from the part of the company till 20/3/2014.  Total Rs,19,9600/- paid by complainant in this policy.  When contacted in toll free No. provided in the document it was replied that this number was not in the service.  Thereafter agent informed the complainant that Insurance Office was shifted to new building near beach road Kollam.  After that as per the above facts stated complainant had sent a registered notice Kotak Life Insurance branch office Kollam.  The opposite party as per its letter dated 21/03/2014, 31/03/2014 informed the complainant the policy has been foreclosed without any refund as it does not acquire any surrender value, the policy got foreclosed strictly in accordance with the police terms and conditions.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complaint is filed for directing the opposite party to refund the entire amount of Rs.19,9600/- along with compensation.

          2.Version of the opposite party is as follows:

The complaint is not maintainable.  Complainant is not a consumer.  The said policy was issued to the complainant as per the information provided by the complainant through an independent corporate agent namely investment master.   Complainant had made the payment of two annual premium installments and the next renewal premium was due on 28/05/2010 and accordingly a renewal premium notice dated 29/04/2010 was duly sent to the complainant thereby serving as reminder for him to make the payment of the next renewal premium.  However the complainant did not approach the opposite party with the said premium installment as a result of which the policy entered the lapse mode with effect from 28/05/2010.  Accordingly the lapse intimation dated 28/05/2010 was also set to the complainant intimating him the same.   The complainant never approached the opposite party with the renewal premium despite being aware of the fact that he had to make the payment of the renewal premium for a period of 10 years on yearly basis.  All the necessary intimations were sent to the complainant at every stage intimating him the status of the policy and requesting him to make the payment of the outstanding premiums and revive the policy accordingly.  However the complainant made the payment of only two annual installments including the subscription premium and admittedly failed to make the payment of the further renewal premium.  Thus the policy was foreclosed and failed to acquire any surrender value as per the terms and conditions of the policy.

4. The complainant was examined as PW1.  The documents produced as marked as Ext.A1 to A4.  One witness was examined as PW2.  From the part of the opposite party no oral evidence adduced the documents produced were marked as Ext.B1 and B2.

5.       Points for considerations are:

          1) Whether the complaint is maintainable?

          2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          3) If so reliefs and costs?

6.Point No.1

          The complainant is a policy holder and the complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in foreclosing the policy.  Hence complaint is maintainable.

7.Point No.2

          It is an admitted fact that the complainant has made a payment of two annual premium installments.  According to the complainant the 1^st and 2^nd premium were collected from the complainant by the same agent of PSS Office and she did not approach the complainant to collect the 3^rd future premium, and so he could not pay the further premium amount to the opposite party.  The agent was examined as PW2.  She deposed before the Forum that she was the agent as PSS for a period from 2006 to 2009 and she collected 1^st and 2^nd premium from the complainant and in the year 2009, the PSS closed and she had no knowledge about the future payment by the complainant.  Opposite party filed version stating that the next renewal premium was due on 28/5/10 and accordingly a renewal premium notice dated 29/4/10 was sent to the complainant as reminder for him to make payment.   They further stated that since the complainant did not approach the opposite party with the said premium installment the policy becomes lapsed and they sent lapse intimation dated 28/5/10 to the complainant.  But no document produced by the opposite party to prove that they have sent such letters to the complainant and it was served by the complainant.  According to the complainant no contact details were informed to the complainant and hence he could not contact the opposite party.

          From the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above we are of the opinion that the opposite party should have given notice to the complainant about the change of contact details after receiving two premium amounts from the complainant.   Without giving such details they foreclosed the policy of the complainant and that amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence the opposite party should give an opportunity to the complainant to revive the policy on payment of premium in arrears without any revival charge.

          In the result complaint partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to revive the policy of complainant on payment of premium in arrears without any revival charge.  The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) towards compensation to the complainant for the inconveniences caused to the complainant.

The Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29^th day of April, 2017.

Sd/-  Smt. Elizabeth George (President)                                                                         Sd/-    Sri. Antony Xavier(Member)

                                                                  Sd/-   Smt. Jasmine.D (Member)

Appendix

Evidence of the complainant:

PW1            -        Anilkumar.P(Witness)

PW2            -        Radhamany(Witness)

Ext.A1                   Copy of  notice dtd 20/3/14

Ext.A2         -        Copy of reply notice dtd 31/3/14

Ext.A3         -        Policy document

Ext.A4         -        Copy of identity card

Evidence of opposite party:

Ext.B1                   -        Copy of Policy document dtd28/5/2008

Ext.B2                   -        Copy of Proposal Form

//True Copy//

By Order

Senior Superintendent