Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/294/2022

K. Sukanthalakshmi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Exide Life Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. Nathan

28 Apr 2023

ORDER

 Date of Complaint Filed :07.07.2022

 Date of Reservation      :06.04.2023

 Date of Order               :28.04.2023

          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,    : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.294/2022

FRIDAY,THE 28^th DAY OF APRIL 2023

Mrs. K. Sukanthalakshmi,
W/o. Mr. KantiSubramaniam,
No. 28, 1st Cross Street,
North Kapaleeswara Nagar,
Neelangarai,

Chennai - 600 115.                                                       ... Complainant.

​

1. M/s. Exide Life Insurance Company Limited,
    No. 37/1, New No. 85,

    Padmini Building, 3^rd Floor,
    1^st Main Road,

    Gandhi Nagar, Adyar,

    Chennai,

    Tamil Nadu – 600 020.

2. The Insurance Ombudsman,
    0/o. The Insurance Ombudsman,
    Fatima Akhtar Court, 4^th Floor, 453,
    Anna Salai, Teynampet,
    Chennai - 600 018.                                          .. Opposite Parties.

 

* * * * *

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. Nathan and Associates.

Counsel for Opposite Parties 1 &2 : Exparte on 23.09.2022

On perusal of records and upon treating the written arguments as oral arguments of the Complainant on endorsement made by the Counsel for Complainant this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

(i)    The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to direct the 1^st Opposite Party to redeem the policy as per the initial terms and conditions and credit the said amount in his registered bank account with the 1^st Opposite Party and to pay a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- (In Rupees Forty Lakhs only) towards the expenses, mental agony, hardship and damages caused to the Complainant towards the deficiency of service and the unfair trade practice along with interest of 18% p.a. from the date of the insurance policy.

I.  The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

1.     The Complainant submitted that she is a person of SPANISH Nationality, holding Spanish unpretentious reverence to the law of the land till date without any past precursors. It is further submitted that she has an irrefutable and valued name in the society and a person of ardent nature who warrants utmost veneration and devotion towards the law prevalent in India.
2.     The Complainant further submitted  that she is the policy holder of two policies issued under the ING Golden Years Retirement Plan of M/s. Exide Life Insurance Co. Ltd., (formerly ING Vysa Life Insurance Co. Ltd) which she has availed during 27.09.2013 which had been taken simultaneously to accumulate a corpus fund in India for better returns and to take back
this accumulated yield to the country of adoption after the stipulated minimum lock-in period had expired. It is further submitted that the Complainant has paid all the premiums as required under both the policies without any default only from her foreign bank account under the
liberal investment opportunities of the Government of India.

Policy. No	Date of Proposal	Policy /Risk Commencement  Date	Premium Payment Term	Vesting term	Vesting Date	Premium
02766222	21.09.2013	27.09.2013	5	10	27.09.2023	2,49,000
02766242	21.09.2013	27.09.2013	5	10	27.09.2023	2,49,000

 

3.      The Complainant further submitted that she had initially itself made it crystal clear that she is interested only in a short term investment and sensing that the Complainant will not be willing for long term investment, the Opposite Party has tactfully proposed those plans that allow withdrawal of funds after the end of 5 years and further went on to glorify the funds projected growth and performance after those 5 years.

4.     The Complainant regretfully submitted that during the entire course of discussion and soliciting the Opposite Party never disclosed or revealed the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is important to be pointed out that  the Complainant was thrown light on the fact that it was essential to make a note going forward with the policy since it would lead to a situation wherein the 2/3 rd of the fund value would be permanently blocked and would be never released during the lifetime of the Complainant which would be contradicting the basic intention of investing in the policy and the Opposite Party has deliberately suppressed this term and condition  of the policy.

5.     The Complainant submitted that at the time when the policy kit was sent to her with a covering letter elucidating the "Free Look Provisions" which gives the holder of the policy 15 days to review and cancel the policy from the date of receipt of the policy documents, she was not in India. During the Complainant's subsequent visit to India, all while being
in the dark of the fact that the "Free Look Provision" had expired and still under the spell of the officers of the company with their tactful explanation of the policy at the time of proposal, the Complainant kept the kit in the safe deposit vault for safekeeping, only to realise the intricacies of the terms and conditions at the time when she decided to surrender the policy at their Exide Adyar Office (CHE03) on 06.08.2019.

6.     The Complainant further submitted that during the entire duration of the premium payment term, the premium was paid without any default, and had she been aware of the conditions  contained in the policy she would have either objected immediately or at least would have stopped making payments of the premium amount which the Complainant has fully paid to its full time till September 2018 which would conclude the full value of the said policy.

7.     The Complainant raised a complaint with IRDAI and Ombudsman which yieled no effective result. Further the Complainant had given a proposal to migrate to any other Insurance Company of their choice and to buy the annuity plan from any other insurance company and to settle the base amount plus interest and residual benefits accrued from 10/02/2020 till the date of accepting their proposal for closure but the Opposite Party informed that they will not be able to comply with the request of the Complainant and that the decision of the Opposite Party remains unchanged. Hence the complaint.

III. The Opposite Parties 1 &2 set ex parte:

        Notice was sent to the Opposite Parties and was duly served to the Opposite Parties. Despite the notice being served to the Opposite Parties, they failed to appear before this Commission either in person or through Counsel on the hearing date and not filed any written version on their side.  Hence the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 are called absent and set ex-parte. Subsequently, the case was proceeded to be heard on merits.

IV. The Complainant has filed his proof affidavit, in support of his claim in the complaint and has filed 9 documents which are marked as Ex.A-1 to A-9. Written argument  of Complainant filed.

V. Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

POINT NO. 1 :-

8.    Upon perusal of Ex.A1 & A2, it is evident that the Complainant had availed  two policies bearing Nos. 02766222 & 02766242 under “ING Golden years Retirement plans” from the Opposite Parties whereby premium of  Rs.2,49,000/- for each policy had to be paid  for  five years commencing from 27.9.2013 with vesting terms of 10 years and  the vesting date is on 27.9.2023. The Complainant had paid all the premiums under both the policies. The contention of the Complainant is that she is Spanish citizen  and “Foreign National of Indian Origin“. The Opposite Parties have approached the Complainant with investment opportunities in their company scheme. After making it clear that she was interested only in a short term investment, the official of the Opposite Parties proposed her plan assuring that the funds could be withdrawn after five years of the lock in period and further assured a glorified growth of their investment. Further contended that the Opposite Parties never disclosed or revealed the terms and conditions of the policy and had suppressed that 2/3^rd of the fund value would be blocked and  would never be released during the life time of the Complainant till the proposal forms were signed. It was further contended that the policy kit was sent to her when she was outside India and that she was not aware of the free look provisions of 15 days to review and cancel the policy. Further submitted that the policy would suit only an Indian resident  and that  the policy would not suit to herself or to her husband who had already reached 60 years. The Complainant submitted that as per the policy on her death, the legal heirs will have to submit medical certificate issued by a doctor citing the cause of death. As the Complainant is residing in Spain such a medical certificate would be issued only after a post mortem is conducted. Such a procedure put her legal heirs to great hardship and if they are unable to produce medical certificate, they may lose the benefit of the policy availed by her. Further submitted that the Opposite Parties were not interested in addressing her grievances and was only interested in  making her to subscribe  to  new annuity  policy.  

9.      As regard the contention of the Complainant that  the Opposite Parties  suppressed the terms and condition of the policy issued by them,  admittedly the Complainant  had received the  policy where  Clause 5.4  of the policy  provides for free look provisions which gives the holder of a policy of 15 days time period to review the terms and conditions of the policy and  if the policy holder disagrees with any of the terms and conditions she had  option to return the policy stating the reasons for the objections upon which the Opposite Party shall return the premium paid subject to reductions  and cancel the policy, for which the Complainant had contended that she was abroad at the time of issuing policy and that she could not review the policy in 15 days time period is not acceptable as even after her return to India she had paid the premiums for the entire period of 5 years and hence the contention that she was unaware of the terms and conditions of the policy will not hold good after having received the policy and kept in her safe custody.

10.       Further the submissions of the Complainant who is already in her late fifties is apt for an 25 year old person and moreover the policy will suit only an Indian resident is also untenable as the Complainant ought to have known the pros and cons of the policy and its suitability for her before availing the policy and not after payment of entire premium amounts and at the time of surrendering the policy.

11.        In so far as the contention of the Complainant  that  she did not knew  that 2/3^rd of the fund value would be permanently blocked and would not be released  during her life time,  Clause 4.8 (ii) of the  policy, it is clearly mentioned as follows:

II. Policies surrendered on or after completion of the 5 years lock-in-period:

1. The surrender value shall not be less than the IPA value on the date of such surrender plus prorated interest rate from last policy anniversary till the date of surrender.

4.8.1 Manner of Payment of Surrender Benefit:

Surrender value as  specified under Section 4.8 payable account of Section 4.8 (i) or Section 4.8 (ii) should be utilized in the manner explained below:

(i)   If the policy is surrendered or discontinued during the lock-in period and is paid from the Discontinuance pension policy Account on completion of the lock-in-period.

4.8.1.1. To commute to the extent allowed under Income Tax  Act, 1961 and to utilize the balance amount to purchase Annuity plan as per then prevailing  IRDA Regulations which shall be Guaranteed for Life, at the then prevailing Annuity Rate.  The prevailing Regulations require the annuity to be purchased from the company.

(ii). If the surrender happens on or completion of the Lock-in-period then it has to be utilized in the following manner:

1. To commute to the extent allowed under Income Tax Act,1961  and to utilize the balance amount to purchase Annuity Plan as per then prevailing IRDA Regulations which shall be Guaranteed for Life, at the then prevailing Annuity Rate.  The prevailing Regulations require the annuity to be purchased from the company;
2. To purchase the entire proceeds to purchase the single premium accumulating pension product from The Company”

12.    The above Clause specifies the manner in which payment of surrender benefits would be made by the Opposite Parties.  Further as per Ex.A4, the email dated 5.11.2020, the 1^st Opposite Party had informed the Complainant that Exide Life Golden Years Retirement Plan bearing Policy Nos.02766222 & 02766242 were issued on 27.9.2013. The Complainant after understanding  the entire policy had opted for the plan and  the Complainant who had the liberty to review the terms and conditions of the policy in the free look period  did not raise any objections within 15 days after receipt of the policy,  and therefore , it was legally presumed that the policy was accepted by the Complainant. As per Ex.A-4 and page No.70, the Opposite Party had informed the appropriate surrender value as below:

Policy No	02766222	02766242
Approximate surrender value	1490213.00	1490280.00
2/3 amount	993475.33	993520.00
1/3 amount	496737.67	496760.00

 

Below are the frequency mode of payment available for the 2/3^rd IPA value.

Annuity Payout Mode (policy no.02766222)	Yearly	Half yearly	Quarterly	Monthly
Annuity Payout Amount (rounded off)	71,073.00	34,471.00	16,880.00	5,508.00

 

Annuity Payout Mode (policy no.02766242)	Yearly	Half yearly	Quarterly	Monthly
Annuity Payout Amount (rounded off)	71,076.00	34,472.00	16,881.00	5,508.00

 

13.            However the Complainant aggrieved by the acts of the Opposite Party had approached Insurance Ombudsman who decided the case against the Complainant holding that the Complainant has not proved her allegations against the Opposite Party. Further dissatisfied by the award dated 28.02.2020 passed by the Insurance Ombudsman the Complainant by email dated 15.12.2020, Ex.A-5 had given a proposal to the Opposite Party for settlement of amount and to migrate to any other Insurance company of her choice which proposal was delivered by the Opposite Party vide email dated 07.12.2021, Ex.A-16.

14.    The contention of the Complainant that the Opposite Party misguided and misrepresented the Complainant in order to sell their policy and that Section.200, 238, 16(1) and 19(a),  2 (d)  and Section 23 & 29 of the India Contract Act  was not adhered to by the Opposite Parties, which allegations of fraud, undue influence does not fall under the purview of the Consumer Protection, Act and hence cannot be decided by this Commission. 

15.    From the aforesaid discussions and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Commission is considered view that  the contention of the Complainant that the Opposite Party had suppressed  the terms and conditions of the policy and missold  the policies to her will not hold good, as after having  paid the premium for the entire 5 years  and thereafter realising that the policy would not suit her  and that the returns of the policy are poor is not acceptable and  the Opposite Parties having acted  upon  the terms and conditions of the policy and having agreed to  provide annuity plan to the Complainant as per the policy plan,  this Commission hold that the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service.  Accordingly Point No.1 is answered against the Complainant.

 

 

POINT NOS 2 & 3

16.    As discussed and decided above in Point No1. that the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service, the Complainant is not entitled for the relief sought for in the complaint or any other relief.  Accordingly these Points are answered.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 28^th April 2023.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                            PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1		Xerox copy of the policy bearing No. 02766222.
Ex.A2		Xerox copy of the policy bearing Policy No.02766242.
Ex.A3	28.02.2020	Xerox copy of the award passed by the 2nd Opposite Party Vide 10/CHN A/LI/01/149/2019-20 and Ref.No.CHN-L-025-1920-0469.
Ex.A4	05.11.2019	Xerox copy of mail communication from the 1st Opposite Party to the Complainant.
Ex.A5	15.12.2020	Xerox copy of the mail communication by the Complainant to the 1st Opposite Party.
Ex.A6	06.01.2021	Xerox copy of the mail communication by the Complainant to the 1st Opposite Party.
Ex.A7	07.01.2021     To 08.01.2021	Xerox copy of mail communication from the 1st Opposite Party to the Complainant.
Ex.A8	29.01.2019	Xerox copy of Discharge summary of the Complainant.
Ex.A9	30.09.2019	Xerox copy of the reply main sent by the Opposite Party to the Complainant against their mail sent on 25.9.2019 regarding concern on withdrawal of both the policies.

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

              NIL  

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                          MEMBER I                            PRESIDENT