BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 27/05/2011
Date of Order : 09/08/2011
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 270/2011
Between
E.S. Jose, | :: | Complainant |
Chairman & Managing Director, A 2 Z Group of concerns, P.T. Usha Road, Ernakulam. |
| (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha – 686 661) |
And
1. M/s. Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Ltd., | :: | Opposite Parties |
Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opp. Golf Course, DLF Phase-V, Sector-43, Gurgaon – 122 001. 2. M/s. Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Ltd., Branch Office, Rajaji Road, Ernakulam, Kochi – 16. |
| (Op.pts. by Adv. Nelson J. Manayil, Edathil Building, Market Road, Kochi – 682 035) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. Shortly stated, the case of the complainant is as follows :-
The complainant availed a life insurance policy of the opposite parties in December 2007 by remitting Rs. 48,000/- towards the 1st year premium. Thereafter, no information or letter was received from the opposite party. Hence the complainant tried to approach the 2nd opposite party directly. But due to the strike of the employees of the opposite party he could not contact anybody there. The employees' strike continued for more than 2 years and hence he sent a letter to the 1st opposite party to know about the status of his policy. A reply dated 21-12-2010 was received on 25-01-2011 stating that the policy got lapsed due to non- receipt of the renewal premium since 18-12-2008. The policy got lapsed due to omission on the part of the opposite parties alone. The complainant sent a mail on 03-02-2011 requesting the opposite party to refund the premium amount remitted by him. But no action was taken by them to refund the premium amount. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled to get refund of the premium amount of Rs. 48,000/- with interest and costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows :-
The complaint is barred by limitation. The IRDA (Protection of Policy Holders Interest) Regulations 2002 specifically provides for a free look period of 15 days during which period the policy holder is entitled to review the policy terms and conditions and request for a cancellation if dissatisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy in which he failed. He is not entitled to claim the amount with interest after the expiry of free look period. As per the policy, a premium of Rs. 48,000/- has to be paid annually. The 2nd premium payment became due on 18-12-2008, the amount was not received by the opposite party till due date and also not within the grace period and the policy was lapsed. The opposite party sent letter of intimation to the complainant on several occasions, but there was no response on the part of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.
3. The Power of Attorney of the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Ext. B1 was marked on their side. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The only point that comes up for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the first premium amount of Rs. 48,000/- with interest?
5. Admittedly, the complainant availed himself of an insurance policy of the opposite party by filling out Ext. B1 application form and by remitting Rs. 48,000/- on 13-12-2007. According to the complainant, though he approached the office of the opposite parties, they could not collect the premium, since a strike of the employees was going on. It is stated that the opposite party has not intimated the complainant to remit the subsequent premium inspite of repeated reminders. The opposite parties vehemently contended that the complainant had not raised any objection during the free look period. The opposite parties maintain that they have duly intimated the remittance of subsequent yearly premium to the complainant. But nothing is on record, before us to substantiate the above contention of the opposite parties. The opposite parties ought to have produced evidence to substantiate their contentions on this ground alone the complaint of the complainant of deficiency of service is substantiated. In the absence of anything to the contrary, the opposite parties are liable to refund the 1st premium amount to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation.
6. The question of limitation as raised by the opposite party as well is not sustainable in law, since the complainant has filed this complaint during the currency of the policy. Moreover, the complainant cannot be held liable due to the fault of the opposite parties in taking steps to keep the policy alive. It is fortunate that nothing more mis-fortunate happened during these years which if had been would have been left to fate.
7. In the result, we allow the complaint and direct that the opposite parties shall refund Rs. 48,000/- to the complainant the premium amount with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of receipt till realisation.
The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 9th day of August 2012
Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | Copy of the letter dt. 03-02-2011 |
“ A2 | :: | Copy of the reply mail dt. 05-02-2011 |
Opposite party's Exhibits :-
Exhibit B1 | :: | Copy of the proposal form |
Depositions :- |
|
|
PW1 | :: | Peethambaran. P.S. - Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant. |
=========
