Date of filing : 27-03-2013
Date of order :26-02-2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.108/2013
Dated this, the 26th day of February 2014
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Abdulla.A.K. Marhaba Manzil, : Complainant
Erdumkadavu, Akkara, Muttathody.Po,
Vidyanagar, Kasaragod Dt.
(In Person)
1 Manager, TATA AIG Life Insurance Co.Ltd, : Opposite parties
6th Floor, Penisula Towers, Penisula Corporate Park,
G.K.Marg, Lower Parel (W) Mumbai 400 013,
MAHARASHTRA, INDIA.
(Adv.Saji Isaac.K.J, Kochi)
2 Manager, India Info Line Marketing Services Ltd,
IInd floor, Centry Park Building, Near New Bus Stand,
Kasaragod.
(Exparte)
O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that the agent of opposite party No.1 approached the complainant to join in the insurance scheme of opposite parties. It is informed to him that the insurance is only for 3 years, after that he will get the amount. Believing the words of agent complainant, an autorikshaw driver paid his hard earned money i.e. Rs.15,000/- and joined in the scheme. Subsequently he came to know that the scheme is for 15 years and requested opposite party to close the policy and return back the amount paid by him. But opposite parties failed to close the above policy and return back the amount with interest and cost. Complainant is alleging gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and praying refund of premium amount with 12% interest before the Forum.
2. Opposite party filed version admitting the policy taken by the complainant as Mahalife Gold on 2-6-2011 with a sum assured of Rs.1,61,000/- with an annual premium of 15,000/- with a term of 15 years. Opposite parties denied the allegation that “agent of opposite parties misrepresented the complainant that the amount can be taken after the elapse of 3 years”. Opposite parties also denied the allegation that complainant approached opposite parties and requested to close the said policy and to return back the policy amount”. Complainant after having paid the Ist premium has not paid the subsequent premiums, and hence the policy has lapsed and has no value except as under the non forfeiture provisions of the policy. The complainant having enjoyed the benefits of the policy is not entitled to the refund of the premium as required by him in the complaint.
3. Complainant filed IA 180/13 to issue substituted service against opposite party No.2. IA allowed. Thereafter also opposite party 2 absent, set exparte.
4. Complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination. Exts A1 to A7 marked. Opposite parties counsel cross examined the complainant. Counsel of opposite Party No.1 represented that he has no oral evidence. Ext.B1 marked. Heard both sides. The issues raised for consideration are:-
5. 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief?
6. Issue No.1. The complainant deposed before the Forum that, agent misrepresented him that the amount can be taken after the elapse of 3 years. Policy certificate Ext.A1 is received 4 months after paying the 1st premium. So he did not get the privilege of free look period. Complainant went to the office of opposite party No.1 at Kasaragod and requested them to cancel the policy. But they offered him to correct the same within 3 years, so he did not made a written complaint while going through his deposition, we are of the opinion that there is nothing to disbelieve the testimony of the complainant as a layman while perusing the documents, affidavit and deposition of the complainant we are of the opinion that there is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
7. Issue No.2. Due to the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties complainant sustained monetary loss and mental agony. After receiving Ext.A1 policy, complainant came to know that the agent mislead him to join the scheme only for his ‘commission’ and he was cheated by the agent. While joining in the scheme, the complainant had some expectations. But after getting the policy documents, all of a sudden he lost all hope in continuing the policy because he has to pay Rs.15,000/- per year for the next 15 years. So he approached opposite parties and requested to close the policy and return back the amount. Complainant deposed before the Forum that the company offered him to settle the matter within 5 years so he did not made a written request to cancel the policy. But opposite parties failed to cancel the policy as promised. As a result complainant has undergone, heavy loss and mental agony.
8. The Hon’ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Sicely Thomas V ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 1(2013) CPJ 94 (Kerala) held as follows:-
“The respondent not brought out in evidence whether the agent informed the appellant regarding the conditions of the policy. It is to be presumed that no one will invest such a good amount especially a senior citizen who kept an eye for her own future security and it goes without saying that no one will be ready to accept 25% fore closure amount. The agent of the respondent was not examined to bring out the truth. There is no case that the policy was not issued through the agent. Hence the principal is liable for the act of the agent and the respondent is liable to compensate the appellant”.
Under the circumstances complaint is allowed, opposite party No.2 is directed to refund the premium of Rs.15,000/- with an interest of 12% per annum from the date of complaint with a cost of Rs.3000/-. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1.Policy.
A2 & A3 receipts .
A4.26-12-2011 copy of complaint sent by the complainant .
A5. Postal acknowledgement card
A6. 3-2-12 copy of letter sent by the complainant to opposite party
A7. Postal acknowledgement card
B1.Policy information page.
PW1.A.K.Abdulla.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
