This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay `75,000 as compensation with cost.

          The case of the complainant is that he has taken a policy from opposite party as induced by 2^nd opposite party by giving `25,000.  The complainant has to pay premium for five years and accordingly the complainant has paid `1,25,278 within five years.  During February, 2012, the opposite party has closed the policy unilaterally without informing the complainant and issued a cheque for an amount of `1,02,687.  If the complainant had deposited the above said amount for 5 year with 10% interest he would have get `1,67,891 and hence the complainant has suffered a loss of `65,482.  So there is unfair practice on the part of opposite party and the complainant has suffered both mental, physical and financial hardships.  Hence this complaint.

          In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum both opposite parties appeared and filed their version.

          1^st opposite party filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable because the complainant has not shown the policy details.  The 1^st opposite party has no knowledge about what transpires between the proposer/policy holder and the person who sources the policy.  Since the complainant has not mentioned anything about the policy the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          The 2^nd opposite party filed version admitting that they are known to each other for several years.  The 2^nd opposite party denies the allegations that he made believe the complainant that he will get 40% profit and assured S.B. interest and only on getting the policy the complainant came to understand that the installment has to be paid for five years and only `18,574 has gone into fund and so the complainant is entitled to get compensation etc.  The opposite party has no knowledge about surrendering the policy.  At the time of offering policy 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party made the complainant to understand about the risk and disclosd that the value of the amount invested by the complainant vary according to the rise and fall of share market.  It is also informed that `6426 will be deducted as allocation charge.  The complainant can withdraw the amount after paying 3 years instalment continuously, but he invested for 5 years and unfortunately the share market fell down and value of policy was diminished. So there is no negligence, deficiency of service or unfair practice on the part of opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

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

2.           Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

3.           Relief and cost.

The evidence in the above case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 And DW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 and B1 to B4.

          The complainant contended that eventhough he has paid `1,25,000 by way of five year premium, the opposite party had repaid only `1,02,687 as the full value and hence he had sustained financial loss.  In order to prove his case he was examined as PW1 and produced documents such as premium receipt dated 27.09.2010, payment letter dated 03.03.2012 and acknowledgment dated 31.01.2007.  Opposite party also examined DW1 and produced documents such as copy of proposal form, copy of policy document, copy of payment letter, copy of unit statement etc.  Admittedly the complainant is a unit linked policy holder of opposite party and paid `1,25,000 as premium for five year.  But according to opposite party at the time of closing policy the Net fund value of the complainant is `1,02,687 and that is why they had refund the above said amount  But the opposite party has not stated any where about the sensex and about the market rate of the complainant’s unit linked policy.  The opposite party has not stated anywhere how they calculated the Net assessment value as `1,02,687.  The complainant is entitled to know about the market rate and mode by which they have calculated the fund value.  Admittedly the complainant has paid `1,25,000.  So he is entitled to get the balance amount after deducting allocation charge.  So we are of the opinion that there is hiding of some material facts and hence there is unfair practice on the part of 1^st opposite party for which they are liable to refund the balance amount of `15,887 along with `3,000 as compensation and `1000 as cost to the complainant.  2^nd opposite party is exonerated from his liability and order passed accordingly.

          In the result complaint is allowed directing the 1^st opposite party to refund `15,887 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Seven only) along with `3,000 (Rupees Three Thousand only) as compensation and `1000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as cost of the proceedings within 30 days of receipt of this notice, failing which complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

                                Sd/-                    Sd/-

                           President             Member          

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.   Premium receipt dated 27.09.2010.

A2.   Payment letter dated 03.03.2012.

A3.   Acknowledgment dated 31.01.07.

Exhibits for the opposite parties

B1.  Copy of proposal form.

B2.  Copy of the policy documents.

B3.  Copy of payment letter.

B4.  Copy of unit statement.

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Complainant

Witness examined for opposite party

DW1.  K.P. Babu

                                                                        /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT