BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD
C.C.NO.32 OF 2008
Between
Sri Ravoori Eswar Rao S/o Ravoori Kanakaiah
aged about 46 years, Hindu, Business, D.No.2-108
Guru Nagar Colony, Chittoor-517 001
Complainant
A N D
1. The Tata Aig Life Insurance Company Ltd.,
rep. by its Senior Manager (Customer Services)
Peninsula Towers, 6th Floor, Peninsula
Corporation Park, Ganapatrao Kadam Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai-013
2. The Tata AIG Life Insurance Company Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing (Compliances)
II Floor, My Home Tycoon, Life Style Buildings
Begumpet, Hyderabad-016
3. Mr.Ravikanth Popuri,
Insurance advisor & representative/Agent
C/o Tata AIG Life Insurance Company Limited
II Floor, My Home Tycoon, Life Style Buildings
Begumpet, Hyderabad-016
Opposite parties
Counsel for the Complainant Sri P.Raviprasad
Counsel for the opposite parties Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar
QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
THURSDAY THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
1. The complaint is filed against TATA AIG Life Insurance Company Limited and two others seeking direction to them to pay interest @ 24% per annum on the amount of `33,33,339/- for the period from 21.4.2007 to 22.10.2010 i.e., `4 lakhs besides a sum of `75 lakhs with interest @ 12% per annum thereon towards compensation.
2. The averments of the complaint are that the complainant is the resident of Chittoor Town in Andhra Pradesh. The complainant stated to have been approached by R.Kalyan and G.K.Chowdary and introduced the opposite party no.3 as the representative of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 at whose instance the complainant invested an amount of `33,33,339/- for the purpose of obtaining Invest Assure Gold Policy. The complainant issued cheque dated 21.4.2007 and handed over it to the opposite party no.3 who had obtained complainant’s signature on two blank application forms on the pretext that the other one would be used in case of any mistakes creeping in at the time of filling the first application form. Believing the version of the opposite party no.3, the complainant had signed upon the two application forms.
3. The complainant informed the opposite party no.3 that the amount should be invested in the Invest Assure Gold Policy. The opposite party no.3 informed the complainant that the policy would be sent to him by the opposite party no.1 within 15 days from the date of realization of the cheque. The cheque was issued on 21.4.2007 by the complainant and encashed on 7.5.2007 by the opposite party no.1. The original Invest Assure Gold Policy was not sent to the complainant even after a period of three months and on enquiry with the opposite party no.3 over phone, the complainant was informed that the amount given by the complainant was invested in Invest Assure II Policy. The complainant had lodged complaint on 27.8.2007 with the compliance officer, Hyderabad whereon the opposite party no.3 assured the complainant that he would sought the cancellation proceedings. The complainant suffered mental agony due to the attitude exhibited by the opposite party and as such he addressed letter dated 11.9.2007 to the opposite party no.1 informing it about the non-receipt of the insurance policy and with a request to cancel the Invest Assure-II Policy. The opposite party no.1 gave reply dated 17.9.2007 informing him that they were looking into the matter and on 9.10.2007 the opposite party no.1 issued letter to the complainant that investigations would be conducted in regard to the service issues raised by the complainant and about the dispatch of refund cheque to the complainant. The complainant again on 22.10.2007 received another letter from the opposite party no.1 that they had cancelled the policy and a cheque bearing No.11665 dated 12.10.2007 was enclosed thereto and that the policy stands cancelled. The complainant claimed monetary loss of `50 lakhs on the premise that the amount would have been accrued as profit on the date of return of the amount had the amount of `33,33,339/- was invested by the opposite parties in Assure Gold Policy. The complainant got issued notice dated 10.1.2008 through his advocate to the opposite party no.1 claiming compensation of `75 lakhs for which the opposite party no.1 issued reply dated 11.2.2008 stating that the policy was personally handed over to the complainant at his place by one of their representatives and that the complainant refused to accept the same. The complainant submit that no representative visited his place to hand over the policy at any point of time.
4. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 filed counter contending that the claim for compensation of `75 lakhs together with interest is highly inflated and without any basis. It is submitted that the complainant submitted an application with the opposite parties no.1 and 2 on 21.4.2007 for issuance of policy under Invest Assure-II Plan and issued cheque for `33,33,339/- . The opposite party no.1 issued policy No.U320072271 under Invest Assure-II Plan. The representative of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 Kalyan Revanur requested the complainant to receive the policy in response to which the complainant without assigning any reason refused to receive the policy. The complainant addressed letter dated 11.9.2007 to the opposite party no.1 stating that he has opted for investment in Invest Assure Gold Plan and not in Invest Assure-II Plan and requested the opposite partyno.1 to cancel the policy. The opposite party no.1 acting upon the request of the complainant to cancel the policy and refunded the premium amount of `33,33,339/- through cheque bearing No.111665 dated 12.10.2007 which the complainant had received without any protest. Later, the complainant had issued notice dated 10.1.2008 claiming an amount of `75 lakhs stating that he incurred loss on account of not investing the amount under Invest Assure Gold Policy. Invest Assure-II and Invest Assure Gold Plans are unit linked plans and there is no possibility of such a huge difference of loss on the investment to the complainant. Immediately the opposite party no.1 sent reply on 11.2.2008 to the notice sent by the complainant.
5. The complainant is a Managing Director of a company having annual turn over of `240 crores. Any prudent person of his status would not sign on the blank forms without understanding the representatives in regard to the investment of huge amount. The opposite party no.1 issued the policy as per the request of the complainant and cancelled the policy acting upon the request made by the complainant as also refunded the entire amount received as premium without deducting any charges. As a goodwill gesture the opposite party no.1 company refunded the entire amount without deducting any expenses incurred and considered paying interest of the complainant on written request to the complainant. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1 company. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. The complainant has filed his affidavit in order to substantiate his case and the documents filed by him are marked as Exs.A1 to A8.
7. The Manager, Legal of the opposite party no.1 has filed his affidavit and got marked Exs.B1 to B3.
8. The points for consideration are:
1) Whether the complainant requested the opposite parties to invest in Assure Gold Plan?
2) Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 in issuing Invest Assure-II Plan in favour of the complainant?
3) To what relief?
9. POINTS NO.1 AND 2 The complainant issued cheque for `33,33,339/- dated 21.4.2007 drawn on Axis Bank, Chittoor in favour of the opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.1 encashed the cheque on 7.5.2007. The contention of the complainant is that he had requested the opposite parties to invest his amount in Assure Gold Plan. The opposite parties denied any such request for investment of the complainant’s amount in Assure Gold Policy. Though the complainant has contended that the opposite party no.3 assured him that he would invest the complainant’s amount in Assure Gold Policy, the complainant has not filed any documents in support thereof. A perusal of the application form makes it clear that the complainant has requested for the investment of his amount in Invest Assure-II Plan for a period of 15 years. The complainant has contended that the opposite party no.3 had obtained his signature on two blank application form and conveniently used them for the purpose of investment of his amount in Invest Assure-II policy. The opposite party no.1 has issued reply to the notice of the complainant. The complainant in his notice issued on 11.9.2007 claimed that he was misguided by the opposite party no.3 and his amount was invested in Assure-II and not invested in Assure Gold Policy. Prior to the date of issue of the notice, the complainant has requested for cancellation of the policy and acting upon his request the opposite party no.1 cancelled the policy and conveyed the message through letter dated 22.10.2007.
10. There is no dispute in regard to the amount of `33,33,339/- paid back by the opposite party no.1 to the complainant. Insofar as the contention of the complainant that his signatures were obtained on two blank application form, the opposite party no.1 had refuted the charge stating that the complainant is the Managing Director of the company whose annual turn over is above `250 crores and the complainant of that status cannot be expected to sign on blank application forms. We find some force in the contention of the opposite party no.1. The time from the date of issue of cheque for investment by the opposite party no.1 till the complainant had addressed letter dated 11.9.2007 attains much significance and in view of the cancellation of the insurance policy opted by the complainant, it can be said that the complainant had intentionally invested in Invest Assure-II Policy and not in Assure Gold Policy. The 5th paragraph of the notice got issued by the complainant goes to show that the complainant opted for cancellation of the policy on 27.8.2007 which fact implicit that the complainant had the knowledge of the particular plan he wanted to invest his amount.
11. Immediately on receipt of the request for cancellation of the policy from the complainant, the opposite party no.1 had cancelled and issued cheque for the amount of `33,33,339/- paid in order to succeed his claim, the complainant has to establish that he had requested the opposite parties to invest his amount of `33,33,339/- in invest Gold Assure Policy and that the opposite party invested in some other policy as also that the complainant by such investment in the policy other than the one requested for, had sustained loss which in fact has to be proved by concrete evidence. The complainant has not established the fact that he had specifically requested for investment of his amount in Invest Assure Gold Policy.
12. The opposite party no.1 had sent the insurance policy to the complainant through its representative, however, the complainant refused to accept the policy. Even at that juncture the complainant could have opted for cancellation of policy had he really intended for investment of his amount in Assure Gold Policy. We do find prompt action on the part of the opposite party no.1 in canceling policy and making refund of the amount to the complainant. In the reply to the notice of the complainant it is stated that on the basis of the complainant’s complaint, the opposite party no.1 conducted investigation and it was revealed in the investigation that there was no misrepresentation whatsoever from their side in informing the complainant about the particulars of the policies and leaving him to his choice for the purpose selection of the type of insurance policy and investment of his amount thereof, for the period from 15.5.2007 to 22.10.2007. The complainant had received the cheque refunded by the opposite party, without any protest and encashed it. Taking into consideration of the prompt response of the opposite party no.1 and treating the complaint as a request from the complainant in this regard, we are inclined to allow the complaint holding the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum in view of the fact that the opposite party no.1 had expressed its willingness to pay interest at prevalent bank rate from 15.5.2007 to 22.10.2007.
13. POINT NO.3 In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to pay interest @ 9% per annum on `33,33,339/- from 15.5.2007 to 22.10.2007 along with costs of `2000/-. The complaint against the opposite party no.3 is dismissed without costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.16.09.2010
KMK*
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
NIL
EXHIBITS MARKED
For the complainant
Ex.A1 Letter dated 11.9.2007 addressed by the complainant
to the opposite party no.1
Ex.A2 Letter dated 17.9.2007 addressed by the opposite party no.1
to the complainant
Ex.A3 Letter dated 9.10.2007 addressed by the opposite party no.1
to the complainant
Ex.A4 Letter dated 22.10.2007 addressed by the opposite party no.1
to the complainant
Ex.A5 Photostat copy of the cheque dated 12.10.2007 for
`33,33,339/-
Ex.A6 Legal notice dated 10.1.2008
Ex.A7 Reply notice dated 11.2.2008 issued by the
opposite party no.1
Ex.A8 Brochure
For opposite parties
Ex.B1 Copy of application Form
Ex.B2 Copy of reply dated 11.2.2008
Ex.B3 Basic definitions of Invest Assure-II
MEMBER
MEMBER
