JUDGEMENT

        Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that being assured by the officers’ door to door canvassing by the op company complainant was introduced by the op for opening a Saving Insurance Plan for the benefit of complainant’s infant daughter Miss Neerajita Dutta and accordingly Insurance Proposal Form dated 14.01.2010 placed before by op’s officer named Ratan Das who took complainant’s signature from the said proposal form and other part of the form was filled up by Ratan Das and complainant paid one A/C Payee Cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- to the op which is also written by said officer and complainant only signed in the same.

          Subsequently, op after encashment of the said cheque informed the complainant by their letter dated 20.01.2010 that the proposal form was not adequately or correctly filled up and so insurance liabilities involved under caption non-Medical Requirement and if the proposal form are not corrected filled up in that case the ops are otherwise unable to process the proposal covering the insurance risks.  Thereafter complainant immediately by her letter dated 08.02.2010 informed the op company that they need not process the proposal and the same may be cancelled and withdrawn from her side and also she asked to return her money with interests what they already earned.

          Finally complainant realized the tricks of the op and ultimately she did not get the money in place of that one policy was sent.  Practically op company sent back the delayed cheque of sum of Rs.99,831.71/- only and thereby making a partial refund after deducting a sum of Rs.168.29/- for alleged cost of cancelled concluded policy quoting their alleged Rules for a valid policy cancellation, though the very insurance proposal never existed on the ground already the complainant reported the matter of withdrawal and cancellation.  Further op company also refused to pay any interest at all for the amount of Rs.1 lakh for retaining and utilizing the money for 5 months and for which the complainant has paid compensation to the extent of Rs.5,191/-.

          On the other hand op by filing written statement submitted that no doubt against complainant applied for Saving Assurance Plus Policy with an yearly premium of Rs.1 lakh but at the time of processing the policy it was found that certain details were not furnished by the complainant.  As such the op requested the complainant to provide the details to complete the proposal form but complainant did not send it.  In lieu of that op on 19.02.2010 received a letter dated 08.02.2010 issued by the complainant requesting to cancel the said policy and refund the premium amount and op accepted that letter and the request of the complainant for cancellation of the policy.  Thereafter op had already dispatched to the complainant on 08.02.2010.  But as the original documents were not received by the complainant on the date of issuance of the above that letter, op requested the complainant to fill up an Indemnity Bond and submit the same with the op and accordingly op cancelled the policy after deducting the processing charges as per the terms and conditions of the policy and refunded an amount of Rs.99,831.71/- vide Cheque No.180872 dated 23.03.2010 vide its letter dated 31.03.2010 and the said cheque was duly received and encashed by the complainant.

          Further it is submitted that practically there is no relationship of consumer and service providing after that.  So, the complainant’s complaint is not entitled to get any further benefit and the entire case is vexatious and the complaint should be dismissed.

                                          Decision with reasons

          On proper consideration of the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and also considering the case of the complainant and also defence of the op and particularly the letter dated-24.02.2010 issued by op (Annexure-B) it is clear that for opening a policy of the op company, complainant initially paid a sum of Rs.1 lakh by cheque and op by that letter has informed that they accepted the complainant’s proposal for cancellation of the said policy and it is admitted fact that before cancellation of the aforesaid policy as the proposal form was defective and no policy bond was received by the complainant.  But complainant was asked to file continuity bond at the nearest branch and so that the cheque may be refunded to the complainant.  But by that letter op informed that there is no scope to give any interest against the initial payment of premium and as per Insurance Policy Rules initial deposited paid at the time of submitted application form (proposal) is an interest deposited therefore does not accrued interest.  So op denied his any relief to pay any interest for the said amount.

          But it is admitted fact that complainant Arpita Guha Thakurata received a letter (Annexure-C) dated 31.03.2010 from the op along with a cheque No.180872 dated 23.03.2010 drawn on HDFC Bank an amount of Rs.99,831.71/- and Annexure-C supports that complainant received back Rs.99,831.71/- out of Rs.1 lakh which was deposited as initial deposit premium along with application form for opening insurance policy.

          But now the main dispute is that complainant prayed for interest for that Rs.1 lakh and also challenge deduction of Rs.168.29/- because it is the fault on the part of the op to fill up the said policy because Ratan Das the op’s officer filled up the same and he took all initiative to open the policy and as because he is expressed in filling up form and he filled up the same but only complainant signed.  Then it is fault on the part of the op and practically for the fault of the op’s officer is also --------------.  But for that reason the complainant had no fault and for which the op had no scope to keep money for five months in their custody when proposal form was -----dated 14.01.2010 and cheque was also issued from that day but actually the payment was made on 31.03.2010 and that was acknowledged no doubt in the month of April-2010.  So considering that fact, it is clear that practically op adopted an unfair trade practice and when the form was found invalid for the latches of the op, it was the duty of the op to forthwith the cheque amount of complainant but that was not done and in lieu of that they got the money about 3 months and fact remains for not releasing the said amount forthwith by the op has not been explained but it is settled principle of law if any amount is deposited as premium and same is not used by the insurance company forthwith after encashment for the purpose of policy, in that case it is the duty of the insurance company to refund it in toto without any deduction and question of processing fee as charged by the op is illegal and uncalled for.

          Another factor is that it has become a practice of the op to take such amount in such a fashion in most of the cases and in such a way they are collecting huge money without giving proper interest to the person whose money has been used as capital of the company. 

          In view of the above fact and circumstances, we are convinced to hold that deduction of Rs.168.29/- by the op is completely illegal and uncalled for.  At the same time the retention for the said 3 months by the op is also unreasonable, uncalled for and without any basis for which for that 3 months wrongly retention of the money by the op , the complainant is entitled to get Rs.2,500/- from the op and op is bound to pay the deducted amount of Rs.168.29/- and also Rs.2,500/- for wrongly retention of said initial deposit amount of Rs.1 lakh by the complainant to the op.

          After proper consideration of the IRDA Rules, we have gathered that this op company is not following the directions, regulations of IRDA and they have adopted a new authorization passing aside the Insurance Policy Regulations 2007 and also the IRDA Regulations and considering that fact we are convinced to hold that the present insurance company has adopted an unfair trade practice by adopting such process op has been collecting huge money from different customers which is also no doubt some capital of the bank and by investing it day to day op is being benefited but even then they are not given interest in respect of the amount to the depositors whose policy has not been properly processed or policy has been issued.  In the light of the above observation we are convinced to hold that complainant is entitled to get Rs.2,668/- from the op and op is bound to pay it and at the same time for not entertaining the payment of the complainant, no doubt the op has harassed the complainant for which complainant is entitled to get some compensation to the extent of Rs.2,000/- from the op but op is also bound to pay it.

          In the result, complaint succeeds.

          Hence, it is

                                                       ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed in part against the op with cost of Rs.1,000/-.

          Op is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,668/- to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as compensation for harassing and causing mental pain and agony to the complainant.  Further for adopting unfair trade practice by the op, op is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the State Consumer Welfare Fund only to check the op’s unfair trade practice in collecting money in such a manner and to take such amount as processing fee from such deposit by the intended policy purchasers and said amount shall be deposited to State Consumer Welfare Fund.

          Op is directed to comply the order within 15 days from the date of this order positively and without any fail, failing which for each day’s delay punitive damages @ Rs.200/- shall be assessed till full satisfaction of the decree and even then if it is found that op is reluctant to comply the order of that Forum in that case penal action u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 shall be started for which for implementation of this order of this Forum they may be sent to jail also.