BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 02/06/2012

Date of Order : 21/12/2013

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

C.C. No. 330/2012

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. Briefly stated, the facts of the complainant's case are as follows :-

The complainant is an agriculturist. The 1^st opposite party is a public limited company offering attractive investment schemes to the public. The second opposite party is the business adviser of the 1^st opposite party. On 06-09-2005, for repaying the agricultural loan, the complainant had sold his paddy field and after repaying his loan fully the remaining amount of Rs. 9,50,000/- was invested in Canara Bank, Broadway Branch. Fascinated by the assurances of the 2^nd opposite party on 19-04-2008, the complainant joined a scheme of the opposite parties by name Rich Fund Investment Scheme and invested Rs. 3,50,000/- by withdrawing the amount from Canara Bank, Broadway Branch. On 19-04-2008 itself, the complainant requested the opposite parties to pay the subsequent annual investment amount in half yearly payment of Rs. 1,75,000/- each. The same were paid on 23-04-2009 and 12-01-2010 respectively. He managed to remit the investment amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- on 11-04-2011. As offered by the opposite parties, the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 21 lakhs by 11-04-2012. On enquiry, the 1^st opposite party informed that the Rich Fund Investment Scheme is a pension fund and that the complainant should invest Rs. 3,50,000/- for 10 years consecutively for getting the pensionary benefits. The complainant never intended for any pension scheme and annual payment of Rs. 3,50,000/- for 10 years. There was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is entitled to get the invested amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- refunded with 12% p.a. together with a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs and Rs. 10,000/- towards costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the 1^st opposite party is as follows :-

The present complaint does not raise any consumer dispute as defined under Section 2 (e) of the Consumer Protection Act. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint is barred by limitation, since the policy was issued to the complainant on 22-04-2008. The 1^st opposite party received a duly filled and signed proposal form for issuance of Life Stage Pension Plan, accordingly the policy was issued. The details of the policy is as follows :-

Life Assured	Tom Augustine
Policy No.	08721068
Plan	U49 Life stage pension
Sum assured	Zero
Premium frequency	Half yearly
Premium installment	175000.00
Total premium paid	1050000.00
Risk commencement date	21/04/2008
Policy issue dated	22/04/2008
Policy status	Inforce

As per Regulation 6 (2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policy Holder's Interests) Regulations 2002, the policy holder can withdraw/return the policy within 15 days under the free look period. The complainant did not take any action during this period. As per Regulation 4 (1), a copy of the proposal form is sent to the policy holder to re-examine the replies made by him in the proposal form. The complainant was issued with the same on 30-04-2008, but there was no response. The complainant was very well aware of the fact that he should invest Rs. 3,50,000/- annually for 10 years for getting the pensionary benefits. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. The service of notice of the 2^nd opposite party has not been completed. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A6 were marked. The witness for the 1^st opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 to B6 were marked on the side of the 1^st opposite party. Heard the counsel for the parties.

4. The points that came up for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 10,50,000/- with 12% interest from the 1^st opposite party?

2. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?

5. Point No. i. :- It is not in dispute that the complainant joined the policy by name Life Stage Pension and paid yearly premium of Rs. 3,50,000/- for 3 years each. According to the complainant, at the time of joining the policy, the 2^nd opposite party assured to pay double the paid amount after 4 years. On the contrary, the 1^st opposite party contended that the complainant was fully aware of the terms and conditions of the scheme and he failed to raise any objection during the free look period as per Regulation 6 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policy Holder's Interests) 2002 and moreover, the 1^st opposite party despatched the copy of the proposal form to the complainant for perusal and to get the discrepancies rectified to which as well there was no response.

6. Indisputably, as per Regulations 6 (2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policy Holder's Interests) 2002, the complainant is entitled to take decision to continue with the policy or to reject the same during the free look period that is 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents. As per Regulation 4 (1), a copy of the proposal form is to be forwarded to the policy holder to correct the discrepancies, if any in it. Though the 1^st opposite party contended that they have complied with the provisions of Regulation 4 (1) and 6 (2), nothing is on record or in evidence to show that they have duly complied with the same. Had the 1^st opposite party sent the policy documents as per Regulation 6 (2), the complainant would have been estopped from raising any hue and cry against the policy subsequently. In short, the 1^st opposite party failed to provide the documents as required in the Regulation. The above conduct of the 1^st opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Ext. B1 is the proposal form, purportedly issued by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party. Eventhough the complainant disputed the genuineness of Ext. B1, the 1^st opposite party failed to produce the original of Ext. B1 in this Forum, furthermore they at least ought to have confronted the complainant regarding the genuineness of the document when he mounted the box in which too, the 1^st opposite party failed. In view of the above, we are only to hold that the complainant was not aware of the terms and conditions of the policy said to be included in the terms and conditions of the policy when he is said to have signed the same. In that case, the contract of insurance entered into between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party became void ab-initio. Thereby, the complainant is entitled to get refund of the premium amounts with 12% interest p.a. from the date of each payment till realisation as prayed for.

7. Point No. ii. :- The primary grievances of the complainant having been met squarely and adequately, we refrain from awarding compensation and costs of the proceedings.

8. The opposite parties contended that this complaint is barred by limitation and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. As per Section 2 (1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, insurance is a service and so this Forum has ample jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Even according to the 1^st opposite party, as per the scheme of the policy, the complainant was to pay annual premium for 10 years from 22-04-2008, that means the policy is in force for 10 years from 22-04-2008. The complainant approached this Forum on 02-06-2012, which is well within the limitation period as stipulated in Section 24 (A) of the Consumer Protection Act. So, the above contentions are unsustainable in law and liable to be rejected.

9. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the 1^st opposite party shall refund the premium amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs and fifty thousand only) remitted by the complainant with 12% interest p.a. from each payment till realisation.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21^st day of December 2013.

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========