EFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 22/01/2011

Date of Order : 31/12/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 100/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

1. Brief facts of the complainant's case are as follows :

Believing the assurances given by the 3^rd opposite party the authorised representative of the 1^st opposite party the complainant joined the investment scheme with the 1^st opposite party and remitted 8 quarterly instalments of Rs. 50,514.77 inclusive of service tax. Recently, the insurance company stopped the operation of their Muvattupuzha branch office. Alarmed by the sudden closure of the branch office of the 1^st opposite party, the complainant enquired about the policy taken by him. He came to know that the policy given to him would mature only on attaining of 70 years of age. Immediately, he demanded the repayment of the amount paid by him. But the 2^nd opposite party refused to do so. The 3^rd opposite party had given misleading information and promises to the complainant and he joined the investment scheme believing the attractive offer given by him. The act of the 3^rd opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice. The other opposite parties being the employer is also vicariously liable for the unfair trade practice adopted by him. Hence, the complainant approached this Forum for getting refund of Rs. 4,04,118.16 along with interest from the date of complaint till realisation.

2. The version of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties :

The opposite parties never told the complainant that he would get double the deposited amount. The policy was opted by the complainant after duly understanding the terms and conditions of the policy, accordingly he signed the proposal form. The company is not going to be closed and only business operations is moved from Muvattupuzha office due to administrative reasons, however, service centre is very much there in Muvattupuzha to provide service to the customers. The policy was issued on 06-03-2009 and the same was handed over to the complainant in March 2009, and the complainant after enjoying the coverage for more than one year is requested for the cancellation of policy and refund of premium amount. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant failed to invoke the free look period clause within which the policy can be returned and the premiums are refunded subject to certain minor deductions. The opposite party is not entitled to the amount claimed by him since after the expiry of free look period of 15 days the contract attains finality and the policy cannot be cancelled nor premium is to be refunded.

3. The service of notice of the 3^rd opposite party was not completed. The complainant and the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties appeared through counsel. The complainant was adduced only documentary evidence. Ext. A1 series were marked on his side. Neither oral nor documentary evidence adduced by the opposite parties. We have heard the counsel for both sides.

4. The only point that arose for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 4,04,118.16 from the opposite parties?

5. The case of the complainant is that as per the assurance of the 3^rd opposite party, the complainant was under the impression that he would get double the deposit amount on completion of 5 years, on payment of 3 years premium. It is contended that he remitted 8 quarterly installments and thereafter, he came to know that the policy would mature only, when he attains 70 years of age. He further contended that thus he demanded back the amount, however the opposite parties refused to do so.

6. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties contended that the policy was accepted by the complainant duly understanding the terms and conditions of the policy. And the policy document was issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant. The complainant had not taken any steps to cancel the policy or failed to invoke the free look period mentioned in the terms and conditions of the policy.

7. No dispute with regard to the policy. Admittedly, the same is not matured. Eventhough the complainant alleged unfair trade practice against the opposite parties, there is no evidence before us to substantiate those contentions. Moreover, no evidence is before us to show that the complainant has demanded refund of the premium instalments from the opposite parties. The only evidence before us is Ext. A1 series of receipts of the premium instalments. The complainant did not mount the box to adduce oral evidence. In view of the above, we are of the view that the complainant is miserably failed to prove the unfair trade practice alleged against the opposite parties. We find no merit in the complaint, however, the complainant is at a liberty to approach the 1st and 2nd opposite parties to get the premium instalments returned.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31^st day of December 2011.

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member. Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========