Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/2/2016

Brig. (Retd) Gobindar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Singh Soundh

17 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/02/2016
Date of Institution	:	31/12/2015
Date of Decision	:	17/01/2017

 

Brig (Retd.) Gobindar Singh, AVSM s/o Late Kirpal Singh, R/o H.No.154, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     M/s Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Co. Limited, SCO No.153-155, Sector 9, Chandigarh, through its Development Officer.

2.     Ms. Ajita Rana, Development Officer, M/s Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Co. Limited, SCO No.153-155, Sector 9, Chandigarh. [Deleted vide order dated 30.03.2016].

……Opposite Parties

BEFORE:	SH.S.S. PANESAR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SH.S.K. SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

PRESENT	:	None for Complainant.
	:	Opposite Party No.1 ex-parte
	:	Opposite Party No.2 deleted

                                         

Per S.K.SARDANA, Member.

1.         The facts, in brief, are that taken by the rosy representations projected by the officials of the Opposite Parties about good returns in investing their policies, the Complainant took 11 insurance policies, by paying the requisite premiums, details of which are annexed as Annexure C-1 with the Complaint. The Complainant did not receive any policy bonds. It was represented to the Complainant that the premium amount in each Policy would have to be paid only for the first three years and thereafter, even if the premiums were not paid, the Policies would continue upto the insured period and not lapse on account of non-payment of premiums. However, the Complainant was surprised to receive lapse notices from the Opposite Parties, collectively annexed as Annexure C-2 with the Complaint. Upon receipt of such lapse notices, the Complainant came to know that he had been issued policies for which he had not bargained. The Complainant was issued policies for a 12-15 years premium payment schedule, even though he was over 84 years of age. It has been asserted that person over the age of 70 years cannot be issued a life insurance policy which requires premium payment of more than 5 years.  The Complainant accordingly took up the matter with the Opposite Parties, but to no success. Eventually, a legal notice was also served upon the Opposite Parties, but it also did not bear the desired fruit. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OP-1 did not appear despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 30.03.2016. 
3.         In view of the endorsement made by the learned Counsel for the Complainant, on the Complaint itself, the name of Opposite Party No.2 was also ordered to be deleted from the array of Opposite Parties, vide order dated 30.03.2016.
4.         The complainant led evidence in support of his contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the entire record with utmost care and circumspection.
6.         In the present case, the averments of the complaint have gone unrebutted in the absence of the Opposite Party No.1 (Opposite Party No.2 being deleted) who was duly served and preferred neither to appear in person, nor through its Counsel. It is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine as the policies in question have been wrongly issued to him. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. The Opposite Party No.1 did not bother to redress the genuine grievance of the Complainant despite his repeated endeavors and even after serving legal notice dated 15.07.2013. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against it.
7.         In the light of above observations, the present complaint succeeds against the Opposite Party No.1. The same is allowed qua it. We direct the Opposite Party No.1 as under:- 

(i)     To refund the entire invested amount of Rs.6,50,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Complaint;

 (ii)   To also pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

8.         This order be complied with by Opposite Party No.1, within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which Opposite Party No.1 shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr. No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr. No.(ii) above.
9.         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
17/01/2017	[S.K.SARDANA]	[SURJEET KAUR]	[S.S.PANESAR]
	MEMBER	MEMBER	PRESIDENT
“Dutt”