Per – Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. B. Mhase, President
Heard the Appellant/original Complainant in person and Adv. A. S. Vidyarthi for the Respondent/original Opponent.
[2] This appeal arises as against the order dated 26/10/2010, passed by the Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Consumer Complaint No.06 of 2010, whereby the consumer complaint filed by the Appellant/original Complainant was dismissed. It is an admitted fact on the record that the Appellant/original Complainant is a Chartered Accountant and Company Secretary by profession. He has purchased an insurance policy, known as ‘Kotak Head Start Future Protection’ from the Respondent/original Opponent. Under this policy, the life of the Appellant/original Complainant was insured and it was a policy for a period of 25 years. Basic premium was of `30,000/- per annum and the policy is operative from age of 37 onwards of the Life Insured and a chart shows that if the death takes place at a particular age then, what will be the death benefit admissible under the said policy. So far as this aspect is concerned, there is no grievance. However, out of the amount which are paid by way of insurance premium, a part thereof is to be invested by the Respondent/original Opponent Insurance Company in the stocks and thus, the system contemplated investment in the stocks, a partnership and/or joint-venture of the Appellant/original Complainant with the Respondent/original Opponent and thus, the insured policy-holder is allowed to take part in the stocks and thereby profit sharing in the stocks alongwith the Respondent/ original Opponent. In this respect, the Fund Management Charges, Allocation Charges & Administrative Charges amounting to `15,700/- were charged and there is a dispute between the parties in respect of this amount. According to the Appellant/original Complainant, as per the initial proposal which was discussed and negotiated between the parties, the amounts for the Fund Management Charges, Allocation Charges & Administrative Charges were not chargeable and, therefore, when-ever such charges were imposed upon the Appellant/original Complainant, he made a grievance about it and when it was not admitted by the other side, the Appellant/original Complainant filed a consumer complaint. The question, therefore, before the District Forum was as to whether under the policy, which was issued to the Appellant/ original Complainant, charges for Fund Management, Allocation Charges & Administrative Charges can be charged. In this respect, the District Forum has found that said amount was chargeable and, therefore, dismissed the consumer complaint. The Appellant/ original Complainant also fairly admitted before the State Commission that the policy document, which is given to him by the Respondent/original Opponent, provides for deduction and/or charging these amounts. However, it is the grievance of the Appellant/original Complainant that policy document is contrary to the oral negotiations and the proposal form and, therefore, the Respondent/original Opponent should not have charged these amounts. In fact, the relations between the parties are finally governed by the contractual document of insurance policy and, therefore, if the policy document provides for and permits the Respondent/original Opponent to charge these amounts then, it will not be open for the Appellant/original Complainant to make a grievance about the said charges. What we find is that when the policy was issued, it was also communicated to the Appellant/ original Complainant that if for what-so-ever reason, the insurance policy is not acceptable to the Appellant/original Complainant, the Appellant/original Complainant shall return the said policy within a period of 15 days to the Respondent/original Opponent and the Respondent/original Opponent, after deduction of certain amount, will refund the amount of premium received to the Appellant/ original Complainant. As a result of non-compliance and non-exercise of the said option, contract of insurance has attained finality as per the insurance policy and the Respondent/original Opponent is entitled to deduct the amount as provided under the insurance policy.
[3] Therefore, looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, we hold that the District Forum has rightly rejected the complaint. No interference is called for. Thus, we find appeal devoid of merits and it is hereby rejected. No order as to costs.
Pronounced and dictated on 20th September, 2011.
