By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to return the premium already paid to opposite parties.

2. Brief of the complaint:- Complainants are the policy holder and Micro Insurance Policies introduced by LIC of India. An LIC agent named Mini Xavier introduced the scheme to the complainant. At the time of joining the scheme opposite party No.2 assured that she is ready to collect monthly installments, from the complainant's house. As per the terms, she collected 39 monthly installments thereafter she did not approached this complainant to collect the monthly installment. Subsequently the complainant enquired this matter to LIC office they informed that, they cannot do anything and advised him to approach the agent. But complainant alleged that it is due to the deficiency of service of the 2^nd opposite party policy installment became due and now he is not ready to continue the policy. Hence filed this complaint to return the premium amount paid to opposite parties.

3. On receipt of complaint, notices were served to opposite parties, they appeared and filed version. In the version, opposite party No.1 admitted that they had issued micro insurance policies to the complainants and received Rs.11,440/- as premium. The Micro insurance policies were secured by one Micro Agent Oleena Mahila Samajam, a Non Governmental Organization, who is a member of Confederation of NGOs of Rural India (CNRI), with sub agent codes 001130107, 001130207 and 001130310 and opposite party No.2 is only a specified person employed by the Micro Insurance Agent for the purpose of procuring Micro Insurance policies and servicing the same including collection of premium or policy holders can pay directly premium amount at selected premium points at Meenangady and Padinjarathara and not at all LIC Offices. Premium collected by the Specified person's are remitted to LIC through the respective Micro Insurance agents with the help of special software. Hence regarding the premium collected but not remitted to LIC is to be answered only by Micro Insurance Agent and the Specified Person Mini Xavier 2^nd respondent. Also that the return/refund of premium received under the policies are to be made only as per the policy conditions laid down in the policy document and Central office Circular. Since the allegations raised in the complaint are relating to 2^nd opposite party and the Micro Agent. There is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite party No.1 and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4. Opposite party No.2 filed version denying all the allegations in the complaint that she was regularly collected the premium amount up to 2013 September. Thereafter, on October 2013 she went to complainant's house for collection the 1^st complainant misbehaved to her, thereafter she stopped the collection after getting consent from 2^nd complainant otherwise there is no deficiency committed from the part of her. Subsequently opposite party No.3 impleaded and filed detailed version.

5. In the version, opposite party No.3 stated that they are the micro agents of Micro Insurance Policies of LIC. They have Micro Insurance agents for the purpose of procuring Micro Insurance Policies and servicing the same including collection of premium or policy holders can pay directly premium amount at selected premium points at Meenangady or Padinjarathara. They further stated that due to the unfair act of the opposite party No.1 many of the policy holders were in trouble and they filed Writ Petition before Honorable High Court. The investigation in now going on in this matter. But here in this matter the dispute is in between the complainants and opposite party No.2 only. Hence they prayed to dismiss the complaint against them.

6. On perusal of complaint, versions and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?

2. Relief and cost.

7. Point No.1:- Complainants No.1 and 2 filed affidavit and examined as PW1 and PW2 respectively. Exts.A1 to A3 documents were marked from the side of complainant. Opposite party No.1 not adduced oral evidence but Ext.B1 to B3 documents were marked from the side of them. Opposite party No.2 and 3 were present and examined as OPW1 and OPW2 and Ext.B4 and B5 were marked from the side of them and heard the parties. On verification of evidences and records this Forum find that actual dispute is in between complainants and opposite party No.2, they are relatives. Opposite party No.1 and 3 has no role in the dispute in between complainant and opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 is only a specified person appointed by opposite party No.3 to collect premium on behalf of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 collected the amount and remitted it up to 39 months. In this case complainant alleges that after that opposite party No.2 not approached them to collect the monthly installments. So they could not further pay the monthly installments. On verification of the Ext.B1 statement and Ext.A1 documents it is clear that opposite party No.2 has remitted the collected amount to opposite party No.1 in time. Hence no need of discussion regarding that aspect. Hence the only point remaining for consideration is that the reason for the premium becomes due is whether due to the deficiency of service of opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 submitted that, once she approached complainant's house to collect the premium, the 1^st complainant misbehaved to her and as per the instruction of 2^nd complainant she stopped the collection. The 2^nd opposite party stated that she could not make collection from the complainants due to the misbehavier of 1^st complainant and she stopped the collection. If the 2^nd opposite party find it difficult to collect the premium, she should intimate this aspect to the complainants in writing and should arrange another person to collect the premium. But 2^nd opposite party did not take any such steps. So there is deficiency of service from the part of 2^nd opposite party. 1^st complainant also stated that they were not intending to continue the policy, since it is not possible for them to pay the premium at the premium points at far away place. Now they only wants to get back the premium paid. Opposite party No.1 and 3 has no role in this complaint.

8. On verification of evidences and records Forum finds that complainant altogether paid Rs.11,440/- as per the documents produced by opposite party No.1. Hence complainants are entitled to get back the amount they had paid to opposite party No.1 as per law. So the Forum found deficiency of service from the part of 2^nd opposite party. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

9. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found in favour of the complainants, they are entitled to get cost and compensation.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.1 is directed to pay the amount eligible to the complainants as per the norms and conditions of the policy. Opposite party No.2 is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. This Order must be complied by the opposite parties No.1 and 2 within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 24^th day of July 2015.

Date of Filing:11.04.2014.

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/- MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainants:-

PW1. Jacob. Complainant.

PW2. Thressiama. Anganvadi Worker.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

OPW1. Mini Xavier. Asha Worker.

OPW2. Sujatha. Mahila Samajam, Kozhikode, Westhill.

Exhibits for the complainants:

A1(1). Copy of Premium Receipt book of Jacob (page 1).

A1(2). Copy of Premium Receipt details of Jacob.

A1(3). Copy of Premium Receipt details of Jacob.

A2(1). Copy of Premium Receipt book of Thressiama (page 1).

A2(2). Copy of Premium Receipt details of Thressiama.

A2(3). Copy of Premium Receipt details of Thressiama.

A3(1). Copy of Premium Receipt book of James (page 1).

A3(2). Copy of Premium Receipt details of James.

A3(3). Copy of Premium Receipt details of James.

Exhibits for the opposite parties:-

B1. Premium Received Statement of James.

B2. Premium Received Statement of Thressiama.

B3. Premium Received Statement of Jacob.

B4. List of Policies.

B5. Copy of Writ petition.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

a/-