Haryana

Sonipat

CC/214/2014

MAHENDER SINGH S/O SARUP SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

S.K. SHARMA

05 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

                                                      

                                    Complaint No.214 of 2014

                                    Instituted on:27.08.2014

                                    Date of order:12.10.2015

 

Mahender Singh son of Sarup Singh, resident of village Jatheri, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

     …….Complainant

 

                   VERSUS

 

Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd Branch at Ist Floor, Rudra Telecom, Opp. Minakshi Garden, Gandhi Chowk, Sonepat through its Branch Manager.

   ……Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. SK Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Trilochan Mago, Adv. for respondent.

 

BEFORE-   Nagender Singh, President.

          Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

          D.V. Rathi, Member.

 

O R D E R

 

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that he has purchased the policy no.614737559 from the respondent.  The complainant has made the payment of Rs.50,000/- on 9.1.2009, Rs.50,000/- on 19.12.2009 and Rs.50,000/- on 28.12.2010 to the respondent as installment of the policy.  Due to need of money, the complainant has surrendered the policy to the respondent on 18.3.2013 after completing all the required formalities. After some time, the complainant has checked his account and he found that only Rs.73086/- was transferred into his account and amount of Rs.76914/- with interest was illegally and forcibly retained by the respondent and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       In reply, the respondent has submitted that the complainant had availed the policy no.614737559 from the respondent to which the premium of Rs.50,000/- was needed to be paid annually, but the complainant had only paid the premium for 3 years and requested for surrender of the policy.  Accordingly, the respondent surrender the policy and the amount of Rs.73086/- was transferred in the bank account of the complainant.  It is no where mentioned in the policy’s terms and conditions that the full refund of premium will be paid at the time of surrender of the policy.  Since the age of the complainant at the time of issuance of policy was 55 years accordingly the mortality rate was charged.  The respondent has rightly paid the surrender value to the tune of Rs.73086/- to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire case file very carefully.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has paid Rs.50,000/- thrice to the respondent as installment of policy, but on surrender of the policy, only Rs.73086/- were credited in his bank account by with-holding an amount of Rs.76914/-.

         On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued that the complainant had availed the policy no.614737559 from the respondent to which the premium of Rs.50,000/- was needed to be paid annually, but the complainant had only paid the premium for 3 years and requested for surrender of the policy.  Accordingly, the respondent surrender the policy and the amount of Rs.73086/- was transferred in the bank account of the complainant.  It is no where mentioned in the policy’s terms and conditions that the full refund of premium will be paid at the time of surrender of the policy.  Since the age of the complainant at the time of issuance of policy was 55 years accordingly the mortality rate was charged.  The respondent has rightly paid the surrender value to the tune of Rs.73086/- to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

5.       After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully, we find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondent.  We have perused Annexure B very carefully.  This document totally favours the respondent as per their choice.  In this document, only the growth has been mentioned by the respondent very cleverly.  But it has not been mentioned anywhere in this document, the investor can also suffer the heavy loss and the amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, comes to Rs.73086/- thereby causing a loss of Rs.76914/- to the investor.  This Forum failed to understand when the growth has been mentioned by the respondent, why the expected loss has not been mentioned.  So, the fact cannot be denied that the policy was sold by misleading the complainant. The respondent sold the policy to the innocent consumer by hide & seek and after keeping them into dark.  In Annexure B i.e. letter dated 20.1.2009 issued by the company many things has been mentioned, but even a single word has not been attracted regarding loss which could be suffered by the purchaser.  The important lines of letter dated 20.1.2009 are as under:-

Solid foundation :Rs.1782 crores capital invested

National presence:506 own offices in 321 cities and

sales in over 500 cities through distribution channels,

Large Customer base:Over 3.1 million policies issued

Substantial life cover:Sum assured(Insurance cover to policy holders) of Rs.88,600 crores

Quality certification: The first ISO Ceretified life insurance company in India.

 

Moreover, as per policy clause 1, their are different attractions.  Detail regarding investment is mentioned i.e. the fund will be invested in different head for stable return.  The amount was invested in guaranteed fund.  The investment pattern of the funds will be as follows

ASSET TYPES	GUARANTEED FUND-INCOME (%)	GUARANTEED FUND-DYNAMIC(%)	BALANCED(%)	GROWTH(%)
Govt. Securities	50-100	50-80	20-50	0-30
Corporate bonds(investment grade)	0-50	0-50	20-40	0-30
Money Market Instruments/Cash	0-40	0-40	0-40	0-40
Equities	0-15	0-30	10-40	20-70

 

So, from the above, it is clear that the growth on the deposited amount is 0 to 30% or 20-70%.  But it is very sorry state of affairs that it has not been mentioned that there is any loss to the policy holder also.    In our view, the respondent has sold the policy to the complainant by hide and seek and keeping the complainant into dark.

          However, in our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if some directions are given to the respondent to refund the balance amount of Rs.76914/- to the complainant. Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to refund the amount of Rs.76914/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till realization.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands disposed off.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Devi-Member)    (D.V.Rathi)         (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat.

 

Announced:12.10.2015