DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala

Dated this the 31^st day of August, 2011

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

: Smt.Preetha G Nair, Member

: Smt.Bhanumathi A.K. Member Date of filing:17/12/2010

CC/168/2010

Pushpalatha,

D/o Sethumadhavan,

Pallath House,

Kizhakkancherry, -Complainant

Alathur Taluk,

Palakkad,

(Presently Residing at

Mannath lane, Thrissur)

(Adv.K.S.MENON)

Vs

1.The Manager,

Manappuram Group of Companies,

Branch Office,

Vadakkancherry,

Palakkad

(Adv.K.N.BABU)

2. General Manager,

Manappuram Group of Companies, -Opposite parties

Valappad,

Thrissur

(Adv.K.N.BABU)

3. The managing Director & CEO,

Max New York Life insurance Co Ltd.,

Regd.Office Max House- 1,

Dr. Jha Marg,

Okhla, New Delhi

(Adv.C.MADHAVANKUTTY)

O R D E R

BY SMT. BHANUMATHI A K, MEMBER

The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:

The complainant remitted an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with the 1^st opposite party with specific instruction to deposit the same as single term premium in Birla Sun Life insurance Co Ltd. A receipt of the said amount was issued to her on 22/05/2006. Instead of remitting the

2

amount as directed, 1^st opposite party transferred the amount to 3^rd opposite party for deposit in the Life Maker United Linked investment plan 2 which is a Life insurance Policy for a period of 10 years with liability to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- every year as premium. The complainant had never intended to take such a policy from the 3^rd opposite party nor had she given any instruction to the 1^st opposite party to do so. It was without the consent of the complainant 1^st opposite party had transferred the amount to 3^rd opposite party. Thereafter a policy was sent by the 3^rd opposite party to the complainant in the address of Kizhakkancheri where she was not residing. The complainant's mother, who is an illiterate lady was compelled to receive the same and she kept it there. The complainant knew about the matter only very late. On verification of the policy the complainant finds that the particulars shown therein are not correct. The witness who has attested the policy is not known to the complaintant. Since the complainant has got husband and daughter she would have never allowed her father as the nominee. Complainant suspects that her signature is forged.

On 18/03/2009 the complainant got a letter from the 3^rd opposite party stating that the policy had lapsed due to non payment of premium for 2 years. The complainant sent a letter to the 3^rd opposite party on 28/04/2009 stating all facts. But the 3^rd opposite party by reply dated 08/05/2009 has directed the complainant to revive the policy. The complainant again requested the 3^rd opposite party by letter 11/08/2009 to cancel the policy and refund the amount. But 3^rd opposite party replied that they are unable to cancel the policy or refund the amount. The complainant caused to sent a lawyer notice to both the opposite parties. 1^st opposite party has not cared to send any reply. 3^rd opposite party sent reply with their earlier stand.

The acts of opposite parties caused mental agony and monetary loss to the complainant. So the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite parties to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 1,00,000 with 18% interest per annum and Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of the proceedings.

Opposite parties notice served and entered appearance. Opposite parties filed their version with the following contentions.

1^t and 2^nd opposite parties contents that the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party

3

for taking a Life Insurance Policy of Birla Sun Life and obtained a proposal of Birla Sun Life and issued a temporary receipt on 22/05/2006. Securing a policy of Birla Sun Life Insurance for a person crossed the age of 40 full medical check up was required. Since the complainant expressed her unwillingness to undergo full medical check up, the 1^st opposite party suggested that an alternative to take a policy of Max New York Insurance, wherein full medical check up was not necessary. The complainant agreed for the same and 1^st opposite party had taken steps to get insured with Max New York Life Insurance. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. 3^rd opposite party contents that complainant had submitted a proposal form on 13/07/2006 for a Life Maker Unit Linked Investment Plan and the required premium was also paid through the 1^st opposite party. A policy was issued to her name. Thereafter a complaint was received from her stating that the policy is missold to her. But since such a complaint had not been sent within the free look period the 3^rd opposite party cannot cancel the policy. So they are not liable to refund the amount or pay any compensation to the complainant.

All parties filed their affidavits. Ext.A1 to Ext.A8 marked on the side of the complainant and Ext.B1 to Ext.B10 marked on the side of opposite parties. Complainant and 1^st opposite party was cross examined as PW1 and DW1. Matter was heard.

Issues to be considered are,

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties? If so,

2. What is the cost and relief?

Issues I & II

It is the admitted fact that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the 1^st opposite party. This is also admitted that this amount is transferred by the 1^st opposite party to the 3^rd opposite party and this amount is invested by the 3^rd opposite party in Life Maker Unit Linked Investment Plan which is a life insurance policy with liability to remit Rs. 1,00,000/- every year as premium. The dispute is regarding whether the complainant is instructed the 1^st opposite party to transfer the amount which she paid, to 3^rd opposite party to invest in their Life Maker Unit Linked Investment Plan with a liability to remit Rs. 1,00,000/- every year. According to the

4

opposite party the complainant had approached them for taking a policy in the Birla Sun Insurance Co Ltd. and paid Rs. 1,00,000/-. But since medical check up for persons over 40 years was mandatory and since the complainant was not willing for that the amount was invested with 3^rd opposite party with the consent of the complainant. To the complainant the proposal form was filled by the staff of the 1^st opposite party. The signature in the proposal form is disputed by the complainant. But no steps were taken to prove the same. But in details of nominee it is written the name of the complainant's father. The complainant is a lady having a daughter would have never allowed her father only as a nominee. The complainant agreed to join in the Birla Sun Life Insurance Co Ltd. since the terms of the deposit was attractive as it is a single term premium. But 1^st opposite party transferred this amount to 3^rd opposite party and invested in Life Maker Unit Linked Investment Plan which is a life insurance policy with liability to remit Rs. 1,00,000/- every year. But complainant is not possible to arrange such huge amount every year as premium. The complainant knew about this policy very late as she was not residing in the given address for several months. It is the responsibility of the complainant to enquire whether the policy applied by her was approved or not. The complainant wanted the 3^rd opposite party to cancel the policy and refund the paid amount. But Ext.B7 shows that the company is unable to cancel the policy and refund the initial premium paid since the free look period has expired. But the amount of Rs. 1,00,00/- have been kept by them for more than 5 years.

From the above discussions we are of the view that the opposite parties made deficiency of service on their part.

In the result complaint allowed. 3^rd opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. Again all opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs. 60,000/- as the interest of the said amount for 5 years and Rs. 2,000/- cost of proceedings.

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of receipt of order till realization.

5

Pronouced in the open court on this the 31^st day of August, 2011

Sd/-

Smt.Seena H,

President

Sd/-

Smt. Preetha G Nair

Member

Sd/-

Smt. Bhanumathi A K,

Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1- Cash bill issued by the opposite parties dated 29/05/2006.

Ext.A2- Copy of letter send to opposite parties by the complainant dated 28/04/2009.

Ext.A3- Letter issued by the 3^rd opposite party dated 05/05/2009.

Ext.A4- Copy of letter issued by the complainant to the 3^rd opposite party dated 11/08/2010.

Ext.A5- Copy of letter issued by the 1^st opposite party dated 31/08/2010.

Ext.A6- Letter sent by the 3^rd opposite party dated 22/09/2010.

Ext.A7- Copy of lawyer notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties dated

26/10/2010.

Ext.A8- Copy of letter issued by the 3^rd opposite party dated 22/11/2010

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties

Ext.B1- Copy of the Proposal Form issued by the opposite parties.

Ext.B2- Copy of the Policy Document issued by the opposite parties.

Ext.B3- Copy of letter sent to the opposite parties by the complainant stating her mis-solding

dated 28/04/2009.

Ext.B4- Copy of letter from opposite parties informing the complainant to be followed in getting

the policy reinstated dated 05/05/2009.

Ext.B5- Copy of letter sent by the complainant to the opposite parties stating to return the

amount of premium dated 11/08/2010.

Ext.B6- Copy of letter issued by the complainant stating the discontinuation of the policy dated

11/08/2010.

Ext.B7- Copy of letter issued by the opposite party informing the issuing of Policy Number dated

20/09/2010.

Ext.B8- Copy of Lawyer notice issued by the complainant which consits the cancellation of

policy 26/10/2010.

Ext.B9- Copy of the letter from the opposite parties dated 20/11/2010.

Ext.B10- Copy of letter issued by the opposite parties dated 22/11/2010

Witness examined on the side of the complainant

PW1- Pushpalatha

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties

DW1- Sujeef.B

Cost allowed

Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand Only) allowed as cost of the proceedings.