DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH. Complaint Case No. 397 of 2011 Date of institution: 30.08.2011 Date of Decision: 29.05.2012 Col. K. K. Sharma resident of House No.516, Sector 12, Panchkula. …Complainant (V E R S U S) - M/s Max Newyork Life Insurance Company Limited, Max House, 1 Dr. Jha Marg, Okhla, New Delhi.
- M/s Max Newyork Life Insurance Company Limited through Sh. Ganesh Corporate Services Limited, SCO No.36-37-38, Madhya Marg, Sector 8C, Chandigarh.
….Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. V. P. Chatrath,Advocate for the complainant. Ms. Jamini Tiwari, Advocate proxy for Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the OPs. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT 1. Col. K. K. Sharma (Retd.) has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that the opposite parties be directed to:- i) pay the fund value as on 26.07.2011; ii) pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony. iii) pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation. iv) award any other relief, which the Forum deems fit. 2. The case of complainant is that on 30.07.2007, he proposed for a policy known as “Life Maker Premium-Unit Linked Investment” of OPs and paid a sum of Rs.21,000/- as the first annual premium. The effective date of coverage was 06.08.2007 as per the Schedule (Page 01) (Annexure C-1). The said policy was for a term of 10 years. The the premium was to be paid annually. According to the complainant, as per Para 3(B) of the schedule of the policy, the policy holder was entitled to surrender the said policy after payment of four annual premiums without any surrenders charges. According to the complainant, he paid four annual premiums, totaling to Rs.84,000/-. As per details given in Annexure C-3, the fund value as on 09.08.2010 was Rs.79,894.251. It has further been pleaded that the complainant was in dire need of money. So, he requested the OPs for payment of the fund value on 26.07.2011 vide Acknowledgement Receipt (Annexure C-2). He also met Sh. Rakesh Arya, Representative of Sh. Ganesh Corporate Services Limited, who assured that the complainant would be released the fund value as on 26.07.2011 immediately. It is averred that on 03.08.2011, the complainant received a SMS (Annexure C-4) from OPs that his request is being processed. However, thereafter he did not receive any other communication. So, he served a legal notice dated 08.08.2011 upon the OPs (Annexures C-5 & C-6) but to no effect. According to the complainants, non payment of the fund value by the OPs amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. In these circumstances, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the written statement filed by OPs, a number of preliminary objections such as the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act, 1986; the OPs have not been properly impleaded and the complaint is premature etc. have been taken. On merits, it has been pleaded by the OPs that the complainant approached OP No.1 for obtaining policy known as “Life Maker Premium-Unit Linked Investment”. He filled the proposal form No.442584488 (Annexure R-1) for his grandson namely Shivam Vashisht son of Sh. Ashok Vashisht. His date of birth was mentioned as 22.04.1996. The said proposed policy was for 10 years having annual target premium of Rs.21,000/-. The sum assured was Rs.2,10,000/-. As Shivam Vashisht was a minor, his natural friend and guardian Sh. Ashok Vashisht signed Column No.10. On the basis of the said proposal form, policy (Annexure R-2) was issued in favour of Shivam Vashisht. As per this policy, Col. K. K. Sharma is the proposer and Shivam Vashisht was the insured. In these circumstances, according to OPs, the complainant is not a consumer. It has further been pleaded that as per the policy, the surrender charges are applicable as under: - If Premiums paid are less than four times the ATP paid` | If Premiums paid are greater than or equal to four times the ATP paid | 25% of the fund value | Nil |
It has further been pleaded that after issuance of the policy, the complainant approached OPs for updating and addition of the nominee, so, the needful was done and letter dated 24.09.2007 (Annexure R-3) was sent to the complainant. It has also been pleaded that subsequently, OP No.1 received letter dated 02.02.2010 (Annexure R-4) from the complainant wherein he requested for switching over of the funds but the same was not done. After certain correspondence, which took place between the complainant and the OPs, the complainant wrote letter dated 29.07.2010 (Annexure R-8) to OP No.1 for surrender of the policy. This letter was received by OP No.1 on 04.08.2010. As such, the policy was surrendered w.e.f.12.08.2010. It has been pleaded that on the request of the complainant as he had surrendered the policy by mistake, the said policy was revived and a confirmation letter (Annexure R-9) was sent to the complainant on 20.08.2010. Further, as per the telephonic enquiry made by the complainant on 17.06.2011 and 26.07.2011, on toll free numbers of OPs, he was informed the account value of the policy. Subsequently, on 01.08.2011, OP No.1 received a call from the complainant whereby he sought information as to why his policy had been surrendered. It has been asserted that the complainant was then informed that his policy has not been surrendered. The receipt of legal notice dated 08.08.2011 has been admitted by the OPs. As per the OPs, in the legal notice, the complainant was mentioning surrender letter dated 26.07.2011. The legal notice was duly replied by the OPs vide letter dated 21.09.2011 (Annexure R-11) whereby the complainant was informed that the surrender letter dated 26.07.2011 was never received by the OPs and therefore, the policy could not be surrendered w.e.f. 27.07.2011. According to the OPs, the fund value was informed to the complainant. It has been pleaded that the complainant had opted for a unit linked policy and under the policy, the fund value varies from time to time depending upon the NAV of the units. It has been asserted that in the case of the complainant, the fund value as mentioned by the complainant may not be the same but would depend on the NAV on the day when the written surrender request was given to OP No.1. According to OPs, as the complainant has failed to submit the written surrender letter as required under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record. 5. The main dispute in this case is as regards receipt of surrender request dated 26.07.2011 by the OP. 6. The case of the complainant is that he requested the OPs for surrender of the policy on 27.07.2011 whereas OPs have specifically denied this averment. Annexure C-2 is the Customer Acknowledgement Slip, placed on record by the complainant to corroborate his case. On the top of this Customer Acknowledgement Slip, the name and address of OP No.1 is printed as “Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd, Regd. Office: Max House, 3rd Floor, 1 Dr. Jha Marg, Okhla, New Delhi – 110020”. It also bears the Policy Number as “442584488”. In the space meant for “Type of request”, it is mentioned as “Surrender” and the “Date & Time of request” has been mentioned as “26/7/2011”. Therefore, it is clearly proved that the request for surrender of the policy in question was duly received and acknowledged by the OPs on 26.07.2011. On this very document, the name of the Employee, who had received the surrender request made by the complainant, is mentioned as “Rakesh Arya” with his Employee Code as “CPCHI-173053”. Thus, from this document alone, it is established beyond doubt that the request for surrender of the policy in question was received by the OPs on 26.07.2011 itself. In these circumstances, the act of OPs of not surrendering the policy from 26.7.2011 and payment of the fund value as on that date to the complainant, amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the fund value, which the policy in question, had accrued on 26.07.2011 i.e. the date on which the OPs received the surrender request from the complainant vide Customer Acknowledgment Receipt (Annexure C-2). 7. So far as the preliminary objection as regards the complainant not being a consumer, is concerned, it may be mentioned that while prescribing the policy and filling up the proposal form, the complainant had sought the policy in the name of his minor grandson. So, in the present circumstances, we feel that the complainant who has paid the money, is the original consumer. Moreover, all the correspondence/letters, placed on record, took place between the complainant and the OPs. Therefore, the objection of OPs in this regard that the complainant is not a consumer is devoid of merit and is rejected. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the OPs are, jointly and severally, directed as under:- (i) to pay the Policy Account Value/Fund Value as on 26.07.2011, to the complainant; (ii) to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; (iii) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. 9. This order be complied with by OPs jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to pay the aforesaid amounts i.e. Policy Account Value/Fund Value as on 26.07.2011 plus the amount of compensation of Rs.40,000/-, along with penal interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e.30.08.2011 till the date of actual payment besides payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. 10. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 29th May, 2012. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
DISTRICT FORUM – II | | CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.397 OF 2011 | | PRESENT: None. | ORDER Arguments were heard on 22.05.2012. The case was reserved for orders. Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the present complaint has been allowed. |
29.05.2012 | [J. S. SIDHU] | [LAKSHMAN SHARMA] | [MADHU MUTNEJA] | | MEMBER | PRESIDENT | MEMBER |
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | |
