Date of filing : 22-04-2009 Date of order : 20-04-2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C. 102/2009 Dated this, the 20th day of April 2010 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Yusuf, S/o. Yarammu, Muttam Gate Shiriya, } Complainant Po.Kumbla, Kasaragod.Dt. 671321. (Advs. Narayanan.K, & K.M. Ballakuraya Kasaragod) 1. Metlife India Insurance Company Ltd, } Opposite parties Regd.Off: Brigade Seshamahal, 5, Vani Valas Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore.560004. (Adv. Madhavan Malankad, Kasaragod) 2. Sajesh.K.S, Financial Consultant, Geogit Financial Services Ltd, Tiger Hills, opp.Municipal office, Kasaragod. 671 121, (Adv. Jacab Joseph Kasaragod) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT The case of Yusuf, complainant Yusuf is that he had joined a Life Insurance Scheme in the name of his son Makbool on 03-03-2007. The maturity value of the policy was Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees six lakhs only). The policy was obtained through opposite party No.2 the agent of opposite party No.1. The annual premium is Rs.20,000/-. Opposite party No.2 assured the complainant that the entire premium amount paid by the complainant will be returned when the policy is surrendered. The 2nd Opposite party also detailed the complainant about huge profits that would accrue in future. But that was without disclosing it’s negative aspects viz. the date of maturity. The tenure of the policy is 86 years that would end in 2092. That means it would be double the period of an ordinary man’s life. He briefed the complainant as to the loss of the remitted premium amount if the policy is surrendered before full payment of premium amount consecutively for 3 years. The fact of the receipt of Rs.2,40,000/- at the end of 10 years provided the amount is paid without break in payment is deliberately withheld from him. The sole intention of opposite party No.2 is only to amass huge wealth by way of commission by instigating the complainant to take the policy. Further after payment of first premium the complainant informed the insurer that he would like to discontinue his policy but he was told that the insurer would be acting solely on the strength of the letter and the spirit of insurance policy shown in the booklet. But the complainant received the policy book let only 60 days of the remittance of the first premium. It is his case that thereby opposite party No.2 cheated him. Hence the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. 2. According to Ist opposite party they issued a policy under MET SMART PLUS for an annual premium of Rs.20,000/- was to be paid annually. The policy contained a provision regarding ‘free look’ period. According to free look period if the policy holder disagrees with any of the terms and conditions mentioned there is he enjoys the sole option to return the policy stating his reasons thereof. Accordingly he would be entitled to a refund which amount would be equal to non-allocated premium plus cancellation charges of unit plus fund value as on the date of cancellation of policy minus the expenses incurred for medical examination and stamp duty. The policy was issued to the complainant on 03-03-07 and the policy holder defaulted payment of the renewal premium on 22-09-2008. Opposite party received a letter from complainant seeking cancellation of the policy to which the opposite party as per their letter dated 17-11-2008 informed the complainant that the policy cannot be cancelled as it is beyond the free look period. His policy now stands lapsed on account of non-payment of outstanding premium. Hence the complainant is not entitled for relief. 3. Version of OP No.2. According to opposite party No.2, he is only a facilitator and does only a post office service for which a marginal amount is received by him as commission from opposite party No.1. He has never mislead the complainant. The risk involved in taking the policy was disclosed personally to the complainant apart from furnishing copy of the policies prospectus which enunciates upon minimum premium amount, policy withdrawal, surrender etc. After having been fully convinced, the complainant voluntarily submitted his application form and paid first premium instalment. As per terms and conditions of the policy no surrender is permitted during first three years of the policy and no surrender value is payable during first three years of the policy. He never assured the complainant that he would get the full premium amount at any time upon surrendering his policy. He also never mislead the complainant as to the risk involved with regard to the said policy. All these were personally disclosed to the complainant. The complainant could have returned the policy within the Free look period provided for the cancellation facility. The allegation of the complainant that he was cheated by the agent by remittance of the Ist premium amount much before he had received the policy document is false, baseless and untenable. The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed. 4. The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant and Exts A1 to A6 which were marked. The Complainant was cross-examined by the counsel for opposite parties 1 & 2. Ext.B1 marked on the side of opposite party No.1. Both sides were heard and documents perused. 5. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in selling their ‘product’ Met Life Insurance Policy to the complainant in the name of his son is the cardinal question to be decided in this matter. 6. According to complainant the opposite party No.2, the agent of opposite party No.1 willfully suppressed the main provision in the policies viz duration of the policy for 86 years from him at the time of canvassing. During his cross-examination on affidavit the complainant deposed that Ext.B1 the proposal form is not filled by him but instead it is filled by the employees of opposite parties. He denied that he is running a firm by name Free Land Real Estate, Kasaragod for the last 30 years. He has not given instruction to show that his annual income is Rs.1,50,000/- as evidenced in Ext.B1. According to him he paid the premium in February 14th and the policy is received after 2 months. He was also told by him that if agent that were he to deposit Rs.20,000/- for year for 10 years he will would receive Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees six lakhs) as per document Ext.A1 policy. The agent of Opposite party persuade him to join the opposite parties insurance at a time when he was going to South Indian Bank to sell his shares. The premium has to be paid for 86 years. After receipt of Ext.A1 policy he met opposite party No.2 after one year and was told that if he would not pay the premium for 86 years he is entitled to get refund of the amount that he has paid. He realised that the policy is issued by opposite party No.1 as told by opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 told that he is the agent of opposite party No.1. During cross-examination by the counsel for opposite party No.2 complainant denied all the suggestions put forward by the counsel for opposite party No.2. He further adduced that he has not paid the premium for 2008 and 2009 since as per the policy it would mature only by 2092 and he shall pay premium @ Rs.20,000/- per annum till 2092. 7. As against the evidence of the complainant, the counsel for opposite parties submitted that to get the maturity value i.e.Rs.6,00,000/- as per the policy the complainant need not pay premium @ Rs.20,000/- per annum for 86 years although the policy stipulates the same and the maturity value would be accorded on payment of premium amount for a period of 10 years. 8. But no such clause or provision that is said to have contained the policy is brought to our notice. Hence we are unable to accept the said argument. Further more the opposite parties have also not stated any thing with regard to maturity period and maturity value of the policy. Hence it can be concluded that what is contained in the policy is binding on the complainant and he is liable to pay premium @ Rs.20,000/- per annum till 2092 i.e. for a period of 86 years to get the maturity value of Rs.6,00, 000/- (Rupees six lakhs only). 9. This means that one who has joined in the insurance scheme shall continue payment of premium till the date of his death in order to accrue the maturity benefit. That means one who has joined in the scheme would be trapped in the entire life. This unreasonable unethical and improper method for fixing maturity period of the policy and payment of premium is in no way beneficial to any one except only to opposite parties. It is also a diabolical or evil scheming on the part of insurance companies to offer wild and tantalising proposals in order to seduce prospective customers in to a wild goose chase, so that policy holders would not get a fair chance to settle their claims or to claim refund in their life time. 10. Since the policy offered is a unit linked one, it may be in the nature of speculative marketing of shares. The holder of a policy may gain maturity amount only after 10 years. But it is only a speculation. After the entry of private insurance companies in the insurance sector they are doing aggressive business. Earlier it was service oriented. But now a days it is purely business motivated as they are hell bent upon selling what they call ‘products’. As part of their aggressive business drive they offer a maximum of bonanza’s to their agents and who in turn grab the prospective policy holders by their throat by making tall promises. In most cases insurance policies contain numerous terms and conditions that normally are not disclosed to the insured. No insurance agent would explain terms and conditions those appears to be adverse to the interest of the policy holder. The agent of the insurance company turns out to be a most vital factor. It is he who undertakes the insurance business on behalf of the insurer. He should make it a point to explain each and every condition or clause of the policy to the prospective policy holders which is printed in ‘small print’ of which ordinary persons would not be in a position to read between the lines. As in several other cases in this particular case also the complainant has deposed before the Forum that company agents has taken only his signature from him and all the columns are filled by them themselves. 11. Both the opposite parties never adduced rebuttal evidence to contradict the evidence let by the complainant. Therefore it is clear that at the time of canvassing the complainant what is transpired between the opposite party No.2 and complainant as narrated by the complainant is true. Therefore the act of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service. According to opposite party No.1 the policy holder ought to have surrendered the policy within the free look period of 15 days. But as against this the complainant deposed that the policy was handed over to him by the opposite party No.2 after 2 months of receipt of the policy by them and therefore he lost any chance to surrender the policy within the free look period. 12. Even if it is considered that opposite party No.1 is not liable to refund anything to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy be accepted, even then they cannot absolve themselves from their liability to pay compensation for deficiency in service. Therefore the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant towards the loss hardships and mental agony caused to the complainant by their deficiency in service along with a cost of Rs.2000/-. The prayer of the complainant to refund the premium paid together the policy is disallowed. Time for compliance of the order is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which opposite parties shall pay interest at the rate of 12% for the said amount of Rs.20,000/- from the date of complaint till date of payment. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. Policy Bond Book let. A2.14-2-07 cash receipt. A3. Acknowledgement A4. First Premium receipt A5.Copy of Identity card. A6. Copy of pass book B1.photocopy of bond book let PW1. Yusuf. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | HONORABLE P.P.Shymaladevi, Member | HONORABLE K.T.Sidhiq, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE P.Ramadevi, Member | | 
