IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday, the 30th day of April, 2016
Filed on 16.03.2012
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
C.C.No.87/2012
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Sarath Radhakrishnan 1. M/s. Aviva Life Insurance
Dwaraka, CMC – 11 Avaiva Tower, Sector Road
Cherthala Oppo. Golf Course, DLF –
(By Adv. S. Murugan) Phase – V, Sector – 43
Gurgaon – 122 003
(By Adv. C. Muraleedharan)
2. The Canara Bank, Mayithara
3. Sri. K.X Sebastian, Manager
Canara Bank, Mayithara
(By Adv. P.K. Mathew – for
Opposite parties 2 & 3)
O R D E R
SMT.ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The complainants’ case is as follows:-
The complainant availed a loan for the purpose of education from the second opposite party the Canara Bank, Mayithara. At the inception of the loan the third opposite party instigated the complainant to subscribe insurance from the first opposite party. As per the policy complainant remitted Rs.41,250/-. On closure of the loan, complainant verified about the policy and he wanted to close the policy. Upon the request made by the complainant, the first opposite party intimated the fund value is only Rs.23,159/- and the surrender value is Rs.13,994/-. Complainant is entitled to get the amount paid by him to the first opposite party with reasonable interests. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the first opposite party is as follows:-
The refund of the amount paid as premium cannot be sort as the request for the same is made beyond the free look period of 15 days. The complainant had duly paid 22 quarterly premiums and thereafter he failed to pay regular premium. The policy is a life-long policy and can be surrendered or terminated by the policy holder by applying for surrender of the said policy. The surrender value depends on the market fluctuations and hence complainant should be stopped for claiming the refund of the total premium. The complainant is not entitled for any refund of premium or cost and compensation.
3. The version of the second and third opposite parties is as follows:-
The complaint is barred by limitation. The allegation that the opposite parties 2 and 3 have instigated the complainant to subscribe an insurance policy with the first opposite party is false. There is no defective service on the part of the opposite party.
4. The complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 and A2. The first opposite party was examined as RW1. There is no documentary evidence is adduced.
5. The points for considerations are:-
i) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
iii) If so, the reliefs and costs?
6. Point No.1:- It is an admitted fact that complainant remitted Rs.41,215/- as on January 2012. According to the complainant on closure of the loan he verified the policy and wanted to close the policy and made a request regarding the same to the first opposite party. But
the first opposite party intimated the fund value as Rs.13,999/-. Since the complainant remitted the premium till January, 2012 the complaint regarding the refund of premium is filed within the period of limitation. Therefore we are of opinion that the complaint is maintainable.
7. Points 2 & 3:- According to the opposite parties the policy taken by the complainant is a life-long policy and can be surrendered or terminated by the policy holder by applying for the surrender of the said policy. They further stated that the opposite parties had acted in consonants of the terms and conditions of the said policy. It is pertinent to notice that the opposite party has not produced the terms and conditions of the policy to prove their contentions while cross examining the first opposite party he stated that “Policy schedule hmZnbv¡v \ÂInbn«nà F¶p ]dbp¶p? IrXyambn«v AdnbnÃ. Proposal form- condition H¶pwXs¶ ImWn¡mdnà F¶p ]dbp¶p? CÃ.” So it is clear that the opposite party has not sent the policy conditions to the complainant. At the same time k admitted that they have received Rs.41,250/- out of 22 quarterly premiums from the complainant. They also admitted they have received complaint from the complainant regarding the fund value and surrender value of the policy. According to the opposite parties the surrender as on 12.6.2013 was Rs.13,712/-. The opposite parties did not produce any document to prove that how they have arrived the said amount as surrender value. In the absence of any document, they cannot deny the amount remitted by the complainant. As per the IRDA (Treatment of Discontinued Linked Insurance Policies) Regulation 2010, Regulation 7, obligation of an insurer upon discontinuance of a policy is stated. As sub clause 5 of Regulation 7 the charge levied on the discontinuance, as a present of one annual premium or fund value on the date of discontinuance and its limits are specified. After 3 years, the maximum discontinuance charge for the policy having annualized premium above Rs.25,000/- is shown as lower of 3% (AP or FV) the maximum of Rs.4000/-. So the opposite party is eligible for the deduction of Rs. 4000/- only. In our view as per the above Regulation the complainant is entitled to get Rs.37,250/-. The act of the opposite party in not refunding the amount entitled to get the complainant amounts to deficiency in service.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to refund an amount of Rs.37,250/- [41,250 – 4000] (Rupees thirty seven thousand two hundred and fifty only) with 8% interest per annum from the date of filing the complaint (16.03.2012) till realization to the complainant. Since the primary relief is granted there is no order as to compensation or costs to be allowed. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in Open Forum on this the 30th day of April, 2016.
Sd/ Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/ Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainants:-
PW1 - Sarath R. (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Notice with postal receipt
Ext.A2 - 5 receipts under certificate of posting
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Geo George (Witness)
//True Copy//
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/SF
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
