Sri. Apurba Kr. Ghosh          ……….President

The Complainant has filed this case under sections 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the O.P. and praying for the following order / reliefs:-

1. Directions against the O.P’s. to pay a sum of Rs. 18 lakhs to the complainant.

BRIEF FACT OF THE COMPLAINT

1. That, the complainant is a consumer of the OP’s having her policy No. 1200800574290, sum assured of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty lakh) only and she has completed three model premium of Rs. 2,00,000/- per year towards her life insurance (Annexure-I).
2. That, the complainant entered into policy with OP’s on 26.05.2008 and first premium was paid on 27.03.2008 and premium receipt was issued by the OP’s (Annexure-II).
3. That, a statement of account was issued by the OP’s on 26.05.2008 showing details of the policy (Annexure-III).
4. That, from the statement of account of the policy for the period January 26, of 2012 to 01.01.2013 that the status of the was NON FORFEITURE i.e. auto surrendered though the complainant had made no application for surrender of the policy. That, the surrender had fake place on. 04.04.2013 and the premium was due on 26^th May, closing balance in respect of the policy was shown as of Rs. 3,47,624/- on 01.01.2013.
5. That, the policy was auto surrendered by the OP’s without any cause.
6. That, during the lapse period of the policy the complainant had to face consequences for any unwanted situations towards her life.
7. That, the contract between them has not been continued as the said policy was auto surrendered without giving any intimation to the complainant.
8. That, on 12.08.2015 the complainant wrote a letter to the OP’s in respect of her policy which was received by the office of the OP No. 3 but of no result (Annexure- IV)
9. That, by sending several mails the complainant wanted to know the reasons for auto surrender of her policy but the OP’s made no reply (Annexure- V, VI, VII)
10. That, subsequently it is stated that, the contract terminated as per clause 21 of OP’s Terms & Conditions.
11. That, the complainant sent legal notice on 21.10.20213 to the OP’s but they paid no heed.
12. That, by the act of the OP’s the complainant suffered huge monetary loss.
13. That, the complainant praying for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- per year for 8 years and Rs. 4,00,000/- towards compensation as well as premium of Rs. 6,00,000/- along with other reliefs from the OP’s.

In support of the complaint the complainant has filed the following documents:-

1. Xerox copy of the policy bearing No. 1200800574290 (Annexure-I)
2. Xerox copy of the first premium receipt (Annexure-II)
3. Xerox copy of statement of accounts (Annexure-III)
4. Xerox copy of letter of the complainant (Annexure –IV)
5. Xerox copy of mails (Annexure-V, VI & VII)

Notice was sent from this commission for serving the same upon the OP. On receipt of notice the OP’s No. 1, 2 & 3 have appeared before this commission through Vokalatnama, filed written version, denied all the material allegations of the complainant. In the written version the OPs have stated that the complainant has no  cause of action to file this case/the complainant had refunded total amount of Rs. 2,39,000/- on 29.03.2012 and 20.08.2012. The OP’s have also stated that, foreclosure amount of Rs. 1,85,159.61/- was sent to the complainant through cheque No. 190859 on 25.04.2013 through speed post bearing  No. EK044733322IN but the same was returned undelivered and the said sum of Rs. 1,85,159.61/- is lying in the suspense account of the company and the company is ready and willing to  pay the same to the complainant. It is further stated that, this complaint is not maintainable as this dispute is not a consumer dispute. In the written version it is also stated that, after going through all the terms and conditions the complainant took the policy from the OP’s by making first premium of Rs. 2,00,000/- and policy being No. 00574290 was issued on 26.05.2008 to the complainant and policy terms and conditions were sent to the complainant on 27.05.2008 through Blue Dart but within 15 day therefrom the complainant did not cancel the said contract. The OP’s have further stated that, the complainant by a letter dated 29.03.2012 requested the OP’s for partial withdrawal from the policy account and for which a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was refunded to the complainant on 11.04.2012 through NEFT (partial withdrawal request letter is Annexure-OP – 2) and again vide letter dated 20.08.2012 the complainant requested for partial withdrawal from the policy account and the OP’s gave a sum of Rs. 39,000/- to the complainant on 27.08.2012 through NEFT (Annexure – OP – 3). In the written version the OP’s  have also stated that due to non-receipt of premium under the policy since May 2012 the policy moved to premium discontinuance status effective from 26.05.2012 and due to partial withdraw of Rs. 2,39,000/- the surrender value of the policy became less than the annual premium for which the policy was auto foreclosed on 04.04.2013 in furtherance to the termination clause of the policy contract. The OP’s have also stated that, in reply to the emails of the complainant they disclosed vide letter dated 30.05.2013 that the surrender value of the policy became less than the annual premium and thereby the policy auto foreclosed as per terms and conditions of the policy  contract (Annexure-OP-4).

By filing the written version the OP’s  have prayed for dismissal of this case.

Having heard the Ld. Advocate of both the parties and on perusal of the complaint, written version, document filed by the parties the following points are to be considered by this Commission.

POINTS FOR CONSIDERARTION 

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether the case is maintainable under the C.P. Act 1986?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. as alleged by the Complainant?
4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for as per the prayer of her Complaint?

                   Decision with Reasons

All the points are taken up together for discussion to avoid unnecessary repetition and for sake of convenience and brevity of this case.

 The complainant was given liberty to prove her case by adducing evidence. To prove the case the complainant has adduced written  evidence in the form of an affidavit. In the written evidence the complainant has stated & corroborated the contents of the complainant. She has specifically stated on which day she purchased the insurance policy and its premium as well as sum assured. the complainant further corroborated in her evidence that, she sent several emails as well as legal notice to the op’s to know the auto surrender of the insurance policy but the op’s made no reply for that.

At the time of argument LD advocate of the complainant submits that the complainant has been able to prove the case by adducing evidence and also by producing several documents. It is further argument of the complainant that, without informing the complainant the op’s has surrender the policy and the complainant was not informed about the reasons of auto surrender of the policy. It is further argument of the complainant that, the amount of fore closure of Rs.1, 85,159.61/- was not given to the complainant. LD advocate of the complainant argued that, they have stated every point of law in their written notes of argument.

 LD advocate of the op’s in the written notes of argument as well as during oral argument submits that, the op’s have been able to disprove the case of the complainant. He argued that the complainant has failed to prove her case against the op’s by adducing reliable evidence either oral or documentary. He further argued that , by suppressing the fact the complainant has filed this case on some false allegation knowing well aware that, she had no cause of action to file the complaint. It is further argument of the op’s that, they have already refunded total amount of Rs. 2,39,000/- to the complainant on 29.03.2012 and on 20.08.2012 through NEFT and foreclosure amount of Rs, 1,85,159.61/- was also sent to the complainant vide cheque No. 190859 on 25.04.2013 through speed post but the same was returned undelivered and the said sum of  money is lying in the suspense account of the op’s and they are very much ready to pay the said sum of money to the  complainant. LD advocate of the Op’s by referring several decisions praying for dismissal of this case.

 Having heard the Ld advocate of both the sides and on perusal of the evidence of the parties as well as documents filed by them it is admitted fact that within the continuance of the policy the complainant vide letter dated 29.03.2012 and 20.08.2012 requested the op’s for partial  withdrawal from the policy account. It is also not denied by the complainant that she was not given a sum of Rs. 2,39,000/- by the op’s towards partial withdrawal from the policy account.

From the annexure of the op no.4 it is clear that, by sending letter dated 30.05.2013 informed the complainant that, the surrender value of the policy became less than the annual premium and for which the policy was autofore closed as per terms & conditions of the policy contract.

It is also reveals form the record that, the op’s have admits on their written version as well as in their written notes of argument that, the complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,85,159.61/- towards foreclosure of the policy. The Op’s have also admits that, they said sum of Rs.1,85,159.61/- is lying in the suspense account of the Op’s company and they are very much ready to pay the same to the complainant.

 It is alleged by the op’s that they sent  the said  sum of money to the complainant by issuing a cheque bearing in no. 190859 dated 25.04.2013 which was sent through speed post but the same was returned undelivered. But it is not explained on behalf of the op’s what steps they had taken to disclosure the said sum of money in favour of the complainant. It is also not explained on behalf of the op’s as to what prevented them to pay the said sum of Rs. 1.85,159.61/- to the complainant through NEFT though they previously refunded partial withdrawal amount of Rs. 2,39,000/- to the complainant.

 It is also not explained on the said of the op’s as to who asked them to keep the said sum of money in their suspense account since April 2013 without paying the same to the complainant through NEFT or through Bank Transfer.

Considering all we are of the view that, keeping the sum of Rs. 1,85,159.61/- in the suspense account of the OP’s company since April 2013 without paying the same to the complainant is nothing but the deficiency in service on the part of the Op’s and they are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount to the complainant.

 Hence,

It is therefore,

O R D E R E D

That the instant complainant case being in No. 06/2016 is hereby allowed on contest but in part. The op’s are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,85,159.61/-( One Lakh Eighty five Thousand One Hundred Fifty Nine Rupees and Sixty One paisa) only to the complainant along with interest @ 7 % per annum with affect from the month of April 2013 till making payment of the same.

 The Op’s are also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) only to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental pain agony and the op’s are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) to the complainant towards cost of legal proceeding and Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) in the Consumer legal Aid Account of this Commission.

The OP’s are directed to pay the awarded amount within 45 days from this day failing which they will have to pay interest @ 7 % per annum with effect from this day till making payment of the entire amount.

 Let a copy of this Final order be given to the parties free of cost.