| ORDER | District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tarn Taran (Punjab) Consumer Complaint No. 09 of 2015 Date of Institution: 09.02.2015 Date of decision: 04.11.2015 Gurnek Singh son of Beja Singh, resident of village: Pangota, Tehsil: Patti and District Tarn Taran. Complainant. Versus - Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager/ Officer, Krishan Dairy Building, Near Chowk Bohri, Tarn Taran.
- Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office 4th Floor, Central Mall, 32-Mall Road, Amritsar through its Branch Manager.
- Jaspartap Singh son of Harbans Singh-Agent Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited, resident of Krishan Dairy Building, Near Chowk Bohri, Tarn Taran.
Opposite Parties. Complaint under section 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date. Present: For the complainant: Sh.K.S.Virk, Advocate. For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Rajbir Singh Sandhu, Advocate. Quorum: Sh.J.S.Khushdil, President Sh.R.D.Sharma, Member Smt.Jaswinder Kaur, Member (Sh.J.S.Khushdil, President) The complainant Sh.Gurnek Singh has filed a complaint under section 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to ‘the Act’ against Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager/ Officer, Krishan Dairy Building, Near Chowk Bohri, Tarn Taran and others (herein-after called as ‘Opposite Parties-Insurance Company’) supported by various documents leveling allegations of deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. - As per the version of the complainant, he purchased a Max New York Life Insurance Policy bearing No.74465483 from Opposite Party No.1 through Opposite Party No.2, as such he is a ‘consumer’ of the Opposite Parties. Jagpartap Singh, Opposite Party No.3 had introduced and represented himself as an authorized agent of Opposite Party No.1 and advised the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.20,000/- annually for the period of 3 years. The complainant deposited all the three annual installments regularly amounting to Rs.20,000/- each, in cash with Opposite Party No.1-Insurance Company. On completion of 3 years, the complainant approached the Opposite Parties to get maturity amount of Rs.1 lac with regard to the policy in question. On the advice of the Opposite Parties, the complainant also opened his account with Punjab National Bank, Branch Patti bearing No.0382000107135101, but the utter surprise of the complainant, only an amount of Rs.12,000/- has been credited to the account of the complainant by Opposite Party No.1-Insurance Company being full and final maturity amount of the said policy. The complainant has also served a legal notice to the Opposite Parties on 2.9.2013 in this regard, but the Opposite Party No.1-Insurance Company refused to make the balance maturity amount against the above mentioned policy vide its reply dated 30.9.2013. It is further alleged that the Opposite Parties instead of making the full and final maturity amount, have paid only Rs.12,000/-. It appears that the Opposite Parties are guilty of fault, imperfection, inadequacy in quality and service, nature and manner of performance of service, unfair trade practice and as well as gross negligence on their part. According to the complainant, Opposite Party No.1 is authorized agent of Opposite Party No.2 and is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the annual payment of installments was made at Tarn Taran. Therefore, the complainant has filed the instant complaint to accept the complaint with following relief:
- To settle, reimburse and disburse the maturity claim of the policy bearing No.744654831.
- To pay Rs.20,000/- on account of mental and physical harassment caused to the complainant.
- To pay Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in service.
- To pay interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till the actual realization.
- Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 filed joint written version wherein it is submitted that Max Life Insurance Company Limited has changed its name from Max Life Insurance Company Ltd. to Max Life Insurance Company Limited after getting necessary approval from registrar of companies. Other preliminary objections were taken that the complainant had submitted his duly signed Proposal Form after fully understanding and deliberating upon the terms and conditions of the policy in question. The terms and conditions of the policy are in strict adherence to norms set by IRDA and were duly communicated to the complainant; that no cause of action has accrued in favour of complainant; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint; that the present complaint is in violation of terms and conditions contained in the policy and the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 referred to various annexed documents. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant has approached Opposite Party No.2-Insurance Company with the motive to purchase insurance plan and due to this purpose, the complainant met with representative of the ops in their branch office where different insurance plan were explained to the complainant by the representative of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. The complainant was to deposit Rs.20,000/- per annum and the sum assured is Rs.2,00,000/-. It is further submitted that before taking the said policy, the complainant had understood and gone through all the terms, conditions, exclusion clauses, etc. etc. of the policy and only thereafter the complainant had filled up the proposal form on 15.10.2009. Thereafter, the policy was issued to the complainant alongwith all the terms and conditions, but the complainant never raised any objection within 15 days i.e. free look period. Thereafter, the complainant has submitted the surrender request with the Opposite Parties and the surrender amount of Rs.12,949.81 paisa was transferred to the account of the complainant. Other allegations have been denied and it was specifically pleaded that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties and the dismissal of the complaint was prayed for.
- Opposite Party No.3 did not file written version in order to substantiate the case.
- The complainant in order to substantiate his claim tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith following documents:-
Ex.C2 Legal Notice Ex.C3 Self attested copy of pass book Ex.C4 Premium Holiday Intimation. Ex.C5 Payment receipt. Ex.C6 Cash payment pay-in-slip Ex.C7 Initial payment collection Ex.C8 Acknowledgement slip and closed the evidence. - On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties have tendered into evidence the following documents.
Ex.OPs1 to 3/1 Self attested copy of proposal form. Ex.OPs1 to 3/2 Self attested copy of Letter dated 27.10.2009 alongwith policy documents. Ex.OPs1 to 3/3 Self attested copy of Smart Assure TM. Ex.OPs1 to3/ 4 Self attested copy of Inquiry Form. Ex.OPs1 to 3/5 Self attested copy of Surrender of Policy Ex.OPs1 to 3/6 Self attested copy of legal notice dated 2.9.2013. Ex.OPs1 to 3/7 Self attested copy of reply to legal notice dated 30.9.2013. Ex.OPs1 to 3/8 Affidavit of Gurvinder Singh Talwar, Deputy Manager. and closed the evidence. - We have heard ld.counsel for the complainant as well as Opposite Parties and also perused the evidence produced on record by both the sides, with the assistance of ld.counsel for the parties. However, as per the respective statements of the ld.counsel for the parties, written arguments have not been filed by both the sides despite availing sufficient opportunities.
- Ld.counsel for the complainant first of all has drawn our attention towards factual position of the case. It was submitted that the policy in question was for 3 years and it was told to the complainant that after 3 years, he would get Rs.1 lac. It was also submitted that the complainant had deposited Rs.20,000/- per year as installment for 3 years which fact has not been denied by the Opposite Parties. It was further submitted that none of the terms and conditions were conveyed or these were made the complainant to understand. The complainant is simple ton person and he put the thumb impression wherever the Opposite Parties had asked the complainant to put. It was contended that the complainant is consumer who has purchased the policy from the Opposite Parties and when the Opposite Parties have not paid the assured money to the complainant after 3 years, then the complainant requested the Opposite Parties verbally as well as in writing by sending legal notice, but the Opposite Parties did not make the payment. The Opposite Parties by using unfair trade practice have deposited only Rs.12949.81 in his saving bank account maintained in Punjab National Bank, Branch Patti. The allegation of the Opposite Parties that the complainant has himself surrendered the policy, is not valid to justify the non payment of the assured sum. Ld.counsel for the complainant prayed to accept the complaint and to award the relief prayed for.
- On the other hand, Sh.Rajbir Singh Sandhu, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has vehemently resisted the contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant. His line of arguments is more or less on the line of written version. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties admitted the issuance of policy as well as receipt of Rs.60,000/- from the complainant in 3 yearly installments amounting to Rs.20,000/- each. It was submitted that it was the complainant who himself surrendered the policy and therefore, a sum of Rs.12949.81 paisa was credited in his account. It was submitted that the complainant was made to understand about the terms and conditions of the policy and he admitted the same and now he can not back out from his admission. It was contended that the complainant no longer remained a consumer of the Opposite Parties as a sum of Rs.12,949.81 paisa, so deposited by the complainant was duly withdrawn by him. It was submitted that at no stage, the Opposite Parties had committed any fraud with the complainant. As such, the complainant can not agitate this point in this Forum. It was alleged that no complaint regarding the fraud has ever been lodged on criminal side. It was argued that the payment of Rs.12,949.81 paisa has been made as per the terms and conditions contained in the policy. Opposite Parties by issuing of the policy in question have covered the risk of Rs.2 lacs for 3 years and the Opposite Parties were not bound to pay Rs.2 lacs on discontinuation of the insurance policy which was otherwise to be matured on 27.10.2018. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has referred to various documents brought on record by way of evidence and the dismissal of the complaint was prayed for.
- There is no denial with regard to issuance of policy bearing No.74465483 Ex.OPs1 to 3/2 as on 28.12.2009. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant continuously deposited 3 installments of Rs.20,000/- per year for 3 years. It is also recorded fact that a sum of Rs.12,949.81 paisa were credited in the account with Punjab National Bank, Branch Patti, bearing No.0382000107135101. According to the complainant, he was entitled to a sum of Rs.2 lacs being the maturity value of the insurance policy after the expiry of 3 years. The stand of the Opposite Parties is totally different that the complainant has made investment and himself surrendered the policy in question and surrendered value of Rs.12,949.81 paisa was credited in his account. It is also specific stand of the Opposite Parties that terms and conditions of the policy were explained to the complainant and when the policy alongwith documents were sent to the complainant, then he did not made any objection within the stipulated period of 15 days i.e. free look period. First of all, after considering the record we are of the view that the complaint is within limitation and the complainant is a ‘consumer’. Even if the amount of Rs.12,949.81 paisa has been credited in his account or even if same has been withdrawn by the complainant, even then the complainant would not seize to be a consumer. Perusal of the file shows that the complainant has thumb marked the documents. Duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 of the complainant and all other relevant documents placed on record indicate that he thumb marked all the documents. As the complainant was totally illiterate person, then the onus was heavily upon the Opposite Parties to prove that the terms and conditions were explained to the complainant and he understood all the terms and conditions including that the policy was covering all the risk of Rs.2 lacs in each year on receipt of installation of Rs.20,000/-. The complainant did not withdraw the policy in question within 15 days could also strengthen this point that the complainant was an illiterate person. This fact further shows that the complainant continued to pay the installments of Rs.20,000/- each for 3 years, with the hope that he would get the maturity amount after 3 years. It is factual position that the complainant did not lodge any complaint regarding the alleged fraud. This point has to be noted here that Consumer Forum has not to try any case of fraud etc. The jurisdiction of Consumer Forum is very specific and limited. There is no evidence on record that any terms and conditions were ever conveyed to the complainant if so he understood all the terms and conditions or he has given his consent to accept the policy accordingly. We are further of the view that it has not made clear to him that amount of installment would be invested somewhere in the share market. According to the document on record at page 25 of Ex.OP1 to 3/1, Net Invested Amount was Rs.15,588/- each in the first and second year respectively and Rs.19,559/- in last year. This fact shows that the amount has been utilized by the Opposite Parties in investment in the open market. There is no evidence on the file that the complainant had ever accepted such proposal or such terms and conditions. Moreover, copy of Acknowledgement of receipt policy at page No.28 of Ex.OP1 to 3/1 did not bear signature of the complainant. To our mind, the complainant was kept in dark about the hidden agenda of the Opposite Parties. In any case, the complainant had paid Rs.60,000/- for 3 years which the Opposite Parties had invested in open market what in turn he got, was only Rs.12,949.81 paisa. Even he has not received the principle amount, what to speak about the interest on the amount of Rs.60,000/- or any maturity amount of Rs.2 lacs. As per table depicted on page No.25 of Ex.OP1 to 3/1 in case the complainant was to surrender the policy in the first year, he was not to get anything. If the complainant was to surrender the policy in the second year, he was to get Rs.375/- and in the third year, he was to get Rs.13,368/-. Had these facts were made clear to the complainant, then he would have not accepted this policy. We do agree that maturity amount of Rs.2 lacs was to be paid, had the complainant died during this period. So, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to the return of the principle amount alongwith interest and also some compensation for undergoing mental harassment.
- Consequently, we accept this complaint in part and direct the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2
- To refund the principle amount of Rs.60,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, deposited by the complainant with Opposite Parties i.e. from the date of deposit of each installments, till its actual realization.
- The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 would be entitled to deduct Rs.12,949.81 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of credit to the account of the complainant.
- Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are also directed to pay the consolidated amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of compensation for causing him mental tension as well as costs of litigation.
- Compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 will pay interest @ 12% per annum on the principle amount i.e. from the deposit of each installment till its realization.
- The complainant’s side is at liberty to set a criminal law in motion, if so advised in accordance with law.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Announced in open Forum (J.S.Khushdil) Dated:04.11.2015. President (Jaswinder Kaur) (R.D.Sharma) Member Member | |
