DATE OF FILING                    :     15-05-2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      11-07-2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     29-06-2015.

Smt. Bijaya Ghosh,

wife of Sri Sukumar Ghosh,

 residing at 41, Rabindra Sarani, P.O. & P.S. Liluah,

District Howrah………………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.

• Versus -

  1.         Max New York Life Insurance,

              represented by Managing Director, Rajesh  Sud,

  having its registered office at  11^th floor, DLF Square,

  Jacaranda Marg, DLF Phase 11, Gurgaon,

  PIN 122002.

   

   

  2.         The Manager,

              2^nd and 3^rd Floor, 15A, Hemanta Basu Sarani,

  Continental Chambers,

  Kolkata 700001……………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.

   

                                                  P    R    E     S    E    N     T

   

               Hon’ble President  :   Shri  B. D.  Nanda,  M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.

                                 Hon’ble Member      :      Smt. Jhumki Saha.

               Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak,  L.l.b., ( Retired Railway Officer ).  

    

                                                   F  I   N   A    L       O    R   D    E     R

  1. The complainant namely Bijaya Ghosh by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 to pay the net surrender value of the insurance policy plus interest along with the other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.

2. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant purchased a life insurance policy being 822826236 on 31.01.2011 on payment of Rs. 50,000/- as annual premium. She paid three yearly premium totaling Rs. 1,50,000/- towards the said policy. But due to her financial problem she could not continue to pay and requested o.ps. to pay out the net surrender value accrued in the policy fund. And the o.ps. accepted the same on 28.4.2014 and wanted to pay only Rs. 75,108/- to the complainant which is totally arbitrary in nature and unjustified, too. So alleging deficiency in service complainant filed the instant case praying for the aforesaid relief. Hence the case.

3. Notices were served. The o.ps.appeared and filed written version. So the case was heard on contest against o.ps.

4.  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

            i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

2.  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief and compensation as prayed for?

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the written version filed by the o.ps. and noted its contents. It is the specific plea taken by the o.ps. that the fund value under the life insurance policy depends upon the longevity of the policy and the duration of the same but complainant did not paythe premium for the whole period i.e.,for 20 years. The complainant paid the premium only for the three years totaling Rs. 1,50,000/- and suddenly approached the o.ps. with the request to pay out the net surrender value of the policy in question. Although there is no written request from the complainant with respect to surrender of the policy, o.ps. wanted to pay the 30% of the total premium paid as per the policy terms and conditions. On perusal of the documents annexed by the o.ps., we have found such clause under terms and conditions under the heading ‘cash value’. But it is to be kept in mind that these terms and conditions are framed by the o.ps. unilaterally considering their own profit making attitude. And the letters of this terms and conditions are so small that it is not at all readable in bare eyes. And it is also our common experience that at the time of filling up the proposal form, the agents of o.ps. simply asked the proposer, complainant herein, to put his or her signature at the ‘ticked area’. And we, being the common people, used to put our signature at those places. Moreover, if a policy is surrendered, it accrues a surrender value on the basis of the day’s NAV. O.ps. have not filed that document. And it is admitted position that the complainant made a total payment of Rs. 1,50,609.09 p. including service tax. And o.ps. now want to pay only 30%  which is   totally whimsical and arbitrary in action.  So we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case, where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed against o.p. nos. 1 & 2  .  Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

            That the C. C. Case No. 283  of 2014 ( HDF 283 of 2014 )  be  allowed on contest with costs against o.ps. but without any compensation.

      The O.Ps. be jointly and severally  directed to refund Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant within one month from this order i.d., 9%  p.a. interest shall be charged till actual payment.

      The O.P. are  further directed to pay  Rs. 1,000/- as litigation costs within one month from this order i.d., 9%  p.a. interest shall be charged.

      No order as to compensation.

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.  

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    Jhumki Saha)                                              

  Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.