CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Bose Augustine, President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 41/2012
Friday the 16th day of August, 2013
Petitioner : Paul N.T
Nadackal House,
Athirampuzha PO,
Kottayam.
(Adv. Francis Thomas)
Vs
Opposite parties : 1) Max New York Life Insurance Co.Ltd
DLF Square,
Jacaranda Marg,
DLF Phase II,
Gurgaon-122002.
2) Managing Director,
Max New York Life Insurance Co.Ltd
DLF Square,
Jacaranda Marg,
DLF Phase II,
Gurgaon-122002 .
3) The Branch Manager,
Max New York Co. Ltd.,
Accession Church Bldg,
Kottayam-2.
(Adv. Alex M. Scaria)
O R D E R
Sri. Bose Augustine, President.
The case of the petitioner filed on 25-01-2012 is as follows:
Petitioner is the policy holder of three unit linked insurance issued by the 1st opposite party. Petitioner remitted 6 lakhs for availing three policies in the name of his three grand children namely Emil Jospeh, Ann Jospeh and Elizabath Joseph and the policy is a unit linked insurance policy. The proposal numbers of the policies are 488768433, 488768425 and 488768417 respectively. The Agent and Sales Manager of the opposite party made believe the petitioner that one time payment of Rs.2 lakhs each is sufficient for availing the said policy. According to petitioner he put signatures in the printed blank forms only on the basis of the representation and undertaking of the Agent and Sales Manager of opposite party. since the Agent and Sales Manager assured one time payment for the unit linked policy petitioner did not read or understood the clauses and terms in the policy. The petitioner understood that he is liable to pay future installments, when the officer of the 3rd opposite party approached him. Petitioner had informed the officer of the 3rd opposite party about the earlier assurance and his inability to remit the amount and demanded refund of the amount deposited by him. Then petitioner sent notice to the 1st opposite party requesting to refund the amount deposited by him. Opposite party sent replay stating false and frivolous contentions. According to petitioner opposite parties are liable to return the entire amount deposited by him. And the act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this petition.
Opposite party filed version contending that policy was issued only on the basis of the declarations made and information provided in the proposal form, duly filled and signed by the petitioner himself. And policy documents were sent to petitioner along with policy schedule, terms and conditions and welcome letter. According to opposite party no where in the above said policy documents it is mentioned that these policies are single premium policies. According to opposite party if the petitioner does not agree to the terms and conditions of said policies he could have cancel it by returning the original policy with a written request within 15 days of receipt of policy document. According to opposite party petitioner did not raise any complaints regarding the policy either within the Free Look period of 15 days or within any reasonable time. Thus the contract of insurance attained finality after the expiry of the Free Look period. According to opposite party there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and they pray for dismissal of petition with their cost.
Points for determinations are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and cost?
Evidence in this case consists of the affidavits filed by the petitioner and
Ext A1 to A3 were marked from the side of petitioner. Opposite party not adduced any evidence. Petitioner filed argument note.
Point No.I
Petitioner alleges deficiency in service on the part of opposite party insurance company in not refunding the amount remitted by the petitioner for taking a ULIP policy. According to petitioner the Agent and Sales Manager of 1st opposite party approach the petitioner and canvassed the policy. They informed the petitioner that one time payment of premium is only for taking the policy. Admittedly as per the policy the life of the petitioner’s 3 grand children were insured with opposite party. According to the petitioner at the time of signing the policy document forms were blank and it was filled subsequently. So petitioner was unaware of the terms in the proposal form. The case of the petitioner is proved by filing of an affidavit.
Opposite party eventhough filed a version and photo copy of certain documents have not filed any counter affidavit or else adduced any evidence to disprove the case of petitioner, even though they had given nine posting dates for adducing evidence. In the lack of contra evidence we are constrained to relay on the sworn proof affidavit filed by the petitioner. In our view act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. So Point No.I is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of findings in Point No.I petition is allowed. In the result
1. Opposite party is ordered to refund Rs.6 lakh to the petitioner with 9% interest from 05-05-2008 till realization.
2. Since interest is allowed no separate compensation is ordered.
3. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of proceedings to the petitioner.
Order shall be complied within one month of receipt of copy of order.
Sri. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of petitioner:
Ext.A1: Notice dtd 3-9-10
Ext.A2: reply letter
Ext.A3: Series-policy documents
By Order
Senior Superintendent
