BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Paramjit Singh Jammu, Advocate son of Sh. Harbans Singh, resident of H.No.1073, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.  Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., SCO 141, 142, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

2.  Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., 9^th  Floor, Godrej Coliseum behind Everard Nagar, Seon (E) Mumbai 400022 through is Managing Director.

                                  ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Complainant in person

Sh. P.B. Sharma, Adv. for OPs

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, on 31.10.2007 the complainant invested an amount of Rs.20,000/- in the Kotak Flexi Plan-II (regular) of the OPs which was a unit link endowment insurance plan.  At the time of policy the official of the OP-1 assured 30-35% growth and that only 5-6% would be deducted as allocation charges but after receipt of the policy he was surprised to see that near about 65% was deducted as allocation charges and out of Rs.20,000/- only Rs.8,800/- was invested and Rs.11,200/- was deducted.  When he contacted the OPs they assured to rectify the mistake by adjusting the amount in his account while paying the 2^nd instalment due in October 2008 but nothing was done and when he went to the OPs at the time of depositing the 3^rd instalment in September 2009 and also wrote letter dated 25.9.2009 they flatly refused to refund the excessive charges.  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             In their written reply the OPs admitted the factual matrix of the case.  It has been pleaded that the policy in question which commenced on 31.10.2007 was issued after processing the proposal made by the complainant. It has been submitted that the details pertaining to charges were clearly explained to the complainant.  It has been further pleaded that the policy documents alongwith welcome letter dated 31.10.2007, which provided 15 days free look period to the policy holder, was delivered to the complainant vide blue-dart courier on 3.11.2007 but he did not contact them and rather paid the renewal premium meaning thereby that he was satisfied with the policy issued.  Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.             We have heard the complainant in person, ld. Counsel for the OPs and have also perused the record. 

5.             The grievance of the complainant is that the OPs are levying allocation charges and other charges at an exorbitant rate which was never told to him due to which there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. On the other hand the contention of the OPs is that infact entire policy was sent to the complainant in which everything was explained and free look period of 15 days was given within which he could cancel the policy.  The complainant is a lawyer and not an illiterate person.  He is supposed to have gone through the terms and conditions of the said policy.  He did not cancel the policy within the said period of 15 days and rather a year later, he paid the next installment of the premium.  He has now started alleging the deficiency which never existed.  The complainant did not produce the copy of the policy in which the terms and conditions including the allocation charges may have been mentioned.  It appears it was intentionally not produced by him, so that we do not come to know of the real facts. However, the OP produced the policy Annexure R-2, which contains clause number 13, showing the premium allocation charges, policy administration charges, fund management charges and other charges which were required to be deducted to run the policy.  At page 14 of the policy again a summary of charges was given.  It therefore cannot be said if the OPs had concealed any information from the complainant.  Annexure R-2 is the letter alongwith which this policy was sent to the complainant, which clearly mentions free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy, within which he could reconsider the decision and cancel the policy. He did not cancel the same nor even objected to the said charges. It is therefore not a case where anything was concealed from the complainant. The complainant knowing fully well did not exercise his discretion to cancel the policy which shows that it was useful to him till then.  Admittedly he paid the next premium after about one year of the policy.  His mind however changed 2 years later when he filed the present complaint on 8.09.2009.

6.              In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs.  This is a frivolous complaint.  There is no merit in this complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.