CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No.125/09
Friday the 25th day of February,2011
Petitioner : Harneymol.P,
Tharappel veedu,
Athirampuzha,PO, Kottayam.
(Adv. Archana.K.K)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) Aviva Life Insurance
Rep.by Manager,
Nagampadom, Kottayam.
(Adv. Anish Ramakrishnan)
2) Jaison,
Pushpakathkala
Kodiyathipadi, Ettumanoor PO,
Kottayam.
3) Mathew Varghese,
ASM 8547
Aviva Life Insurance,
Nagambadom, Kottayam.
4) Varghese Mathew,
Code No.12519,
Aviva Life Insurance,Nagampadam Branch,
Kottayam.
5) Director Operations,
Aviva Life Insurance,
Ashirwad Tower, Plot No.2, 3rd floor,
Kodampakkom High Road,
Chennai-600034.
O R D E R
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member.
The case of the complainant is as follows. She had taken a life insurance policy from the 1st opposite party on 31-3-08 with the assurance made by the 2nd and 3rd opposite party that the complainant should remit only Rs. one lakh as singe premium and after 3 years she could get Rs. 5 lakh. The opposite party issued policy certificate to the complainant on 8/4/08. From policy certificate it was seen that the 3 premium was to be remitted as one lakhs each. Then the complainant contact the Branch office at Kottayam and they told that it was a mistake done by the office and the same was rectified with the confirmation of the Head Office. While so on 8/5/08 the complainant received a letter from the opposite party 1 stating that she should remit Rs. one lakh as the next premium. She approached the opposite party and enquired the details then the opposite party submits that she should remit the premium as ½ yearly mode. The complainant made believe by the opposite parties 2 and 3 that she should remit the single premium of Rs. one lakhs. There was clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party and submits that the policy was treated as single premium policy. But the opposite party has not taken any steps to consider the case of the complainant. The complainant is entitled the remitted amount with interest and cost. Hence this complaint.
The notices were served with the opposite parties. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed joint version and opposite party 5 filed separate version. The opposite parties 2 and 4 set expartee they did not turn-up even after accepting the notice from this forum.
The versions of opposite party 1 and 3 contending as follows. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Opposite party 3 is the sales manager of opposite party company and not for the agent. Opposite party 2 has no connection with opposite party 1 and opposite party 3. The policy certificate of the complainant it can be seen that “premium payment term 14, Policy Term 14”. The opposite party 3 has never told the complainant that the policy was one time policy. The complainant made an application to the 1st opposite party that the policy has to be transferred as one time policy. The 1st opposite party has to forward the application to the Head Office. Once the policy was in force the terms and conditions of the policy can not be changed. If the complainant has any complaint regarding the policy. She can approach the opposite party within 15 days of the receipt of the policy for canceling the policy certificate. In this case there was no such application made by the complainant within 15 days of the receipt of the policy certificate. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
The version of the 5th opposite party contending as follows. The complainant had the option to review and seek refund of the premium if she disagreed with the terms and conditions of the policy within 15 days of the receipt of the policy certificate which she did not do so. The policy was issued based on the proposal form submitted by the complainant. The complainant had stopped making premium payments towards the policy due for 30/9/2008 and even did not make the premium payment within the grace period of 30 days which ended on 30/10/2008 and there by leaving the subject policy lapsed on 5/11/2008. The opposite party informed the complainant about the status of the policy vide lapsation letter dtd 18-11-2008. The complainant has an option to reinstate the policy within two years from the date of lapsation ie 5-11-2008. In case the complainant does not re-instate the subject policy, the amount paid towards the policy will be forfeited as per Terms 7 conditions of the policy. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party 5. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and document which is marked as exhibit A1. The opposite parties filed proof affidavit and documents which is marked as exhibit B1 to B3 series.
Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version, documents and evidences of both sides. The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties had issued the policy to her with the assurance that the policy was single premium of Rs. one lakhs and after 3 years you will got Rs. 5 lakhs. According to her the opposite party’s at the time of the issuing the policy assured that the premium was single premium. The opposite parties made a contention that the policy of the complainant was not single premium policy. According to them the policy was issued to the complainant on the basis of the proposal form submitted by him. Moreover the opposite parties never told the complainant that the policy was single premium policy. Admittedly the policy was issued to the complainant. The complainant was a layman and she was not financially well settled. The premium of the policy was one lakhs. From the available documents and evidences it can be seen that the complainant had remitted one lakhs as under the impression that it was a single premium. The complainant is entitled to get back only the remitted amount with normal interest. The stand taken b y the opposite parties were not sustainable because the policy of the complainant was lapsed due to non payment of premium. Moreover the complainant has not interested to continue the policy. Hence we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.
In the result the complaint is allowed as follows; (1) We direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.1 lakh (One lakh only) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of remittance till payment and pay Rs. 5000/- as cost of these proceedings to the complainant. All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Appendix
Documents produced by complainant
Ext.A1-is the copy of policy
Documents produced by opposite parties
Ext.B1-is the copy of proposal form of insurance policy
Ext.B2-is the copy of standard terms and conditions
Ext.B3-series is the letters dtd 16/1/09 and 22/1/09.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
