PER P.D.GOEL,PRESIDENT

1.           Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that in January, 2008, the agent of the OP approached the complainant for taking the single premium insurance policy of Rs.3,00,000/- which carries a pension of Rs.10,000/- per month after 10 years. The complainant accepted the terms of the policy and became the policy holder.

              It is the case of the complainant that in the year 2009, the OP asked him to deposit a sum of Rs.3.00 lacs. When the complainant approached the office of OP, the assurance was given to him that in the next year, this type of anomalies would not be there. However, in the next year again, the OP demanded a sum of Rs.3.00 lacs towards annual premium of the policy. The complainant vide letter dated 24.5.2010 made a representation to the OP but no action was taken. The complainant served a legal notice dated 4.8.2010 to the OP and also approached the office of Insurance Ombudsman at Chandigarh by filing a complaint. A detailed reply to the legal notice dated 16.8.2010 was received by the complainant from the OP stating therein, that at the top of the proposal form, it is mentioned ‘without cover/single premium’, therefore, it was a single premium policy which was without cover. It is further stated that the slash (oblique) between the word without cover/single premium should be read and interpreted as without cover and single premium and not without cover or single premium, as his income is only Rs.1,50,000/- as mentioned in the proposal form. It has been further stated that in the reply dated 16.8.2010, the OP mentioned that out of Rs.3 lacs paid for the first premium, Rs.1,50,000/- had been transferred on the request of the complainant. It is further the case of the complainant that she never made any request to this effect to the OP. Hence, this complaint.

2.           Mr.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate has appeared on behalf of OP and since 21.11.2011, he took number of opportunities to file reply and evidence but he did not file the same and as such, the defence of the OP was struck of by order dated 2.2.2012.

3.           The complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

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

5.           The averments made in the complaint, as reproduced above in para No.1 of the order, stands corroborated from the affidavit of the complainant, as well as the Annexures P-1 to      P-5.  Annexure P-1 is the copy of representation dated 24.5.2010. Annexure P-2 is the copy of legal notice dated 6.8.2010. Annexure P-3 is the copy of the complaint dated 6.8.2010 made by the complainant before Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh. Annexure P-4 is the copy of reply to the legal notice dated 16.8.2010. Annexure P-5 is the copy of the proposal form.

6.           A perusal of the proposal form -
Annexure P-5 reveals that against the column name of the product, it is specifically mentioned ‘kotak retirement plan/without cover’. Further perusal of S.No.2 of the proposal form reveals that the complainant agreed to pay Rs.3 lacs yearly for a term of 10 years. The said proposal form bears the signature of the complainant also.

7.           Now, it is proved on record that vide Annexure P-5 – Proposal Form, the complainant has opted for Kotak Retirement Plan/without cover. It has also been recorded in the said proposal form that the complainant agreed to pay Rs.3.00 lacs yearly for a period of 10 years. In view of this, it is held that the allegations contained in the complaint that the complainant took single premium insurance policy of Rs.3.00 lacs which covers a pension of Rs.10,000/- per month did not survive.

8.           As a result of the above discussion, it is held that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP. With the result, the complaint is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

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