DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C.NO.17 OF 2017
Present: Sri Rabindranath Mishra - President.
Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattanaik - Member .
Sri Pratap Kumar Patra, aged about -60 years
S/O: Late Sara Patra At: Contractorpada
PO/PS: Phulbani Town Dist: Kandhamal ……………………….. Complainant.
Versus.
1. The President & Executive Director
Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd.
Regd- Office – H-Block, 1st Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani
Knowledge city, Navi Mumbai, Maharastra- 400710
2. Head of U Source C-11, Zone-A, Mancheswar Industrial Area
AT/PO: Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar- 751010, Odisha
3. M.Lata W/O- M.Suresh
Advisor of U. Source, Branch Office, At: amalapada,
PO/PS: Phulbani Town Dist: kandhamal
At present At Kendupadar PO/PS: Phulbani Dist: Kandhamal
4. M, Suresh S/O- Unknown.
At- Kendupadar (Near Neheru Yuva Kendra),
PO/PS: Phulbani Town, Dist: Kandhamal. …………………………….. OPP. Parties.
For the Complainant: Self.
For the OPP. Parties: For the O.P No. 1: Sri Jayant Kumar Mohanty, Advocate, Phulbani .
For O.P No.2: None.
For the O.P No.3&4: Sri Bhagaban Mohanty, Advocate and his associates
Date of Order: 28-02-2018
O R D E R
The case of the Complainant in brief is that he had deposited Rs. 32,500/- on 21-02-2011 before O.P No.3, the advisor of U. Source under Reliance Life Insurance Money Multiplier plan and obtained receipt and other documents of the Reliance life Insurance Company limited. The Insurance Company engaged U. source of Bhubaneswar for marketing of his plan who started his office at Phulbani. The Opp. Party No.3 and 4 are working in the office of Phulbani. After one year the
-2-
said office was closed and the business of the Insurance Company was also closed at phulbani. The telephone numbers of U. source authorities were switched up for which the Complainant could not contract with the persons of the U. source Company. The O.P No.3 and 4 assured him to wait for five years to get back his deposited money as the U. source company closed his business with the Reliance Life Insurance company Limited for their non co-operation .But the O.Ps remained silent and they failed to refund his money for which the Complainant sustained mental agony and financial loss due to gross negligence of the O.Ps. The reliance company was not only committed deficiency in service but also adopted unfair trade practice through unfair method by the help of O.P No.2, 3 &4. The company failed to give proper service to his consumers for which this complaint was filed by him against the O.ps for a direction to O.P no.1 to refund Rs. 30,000/- with 18 % annual interest from the date deposit and for a direction to O.P No.2, 3 & 4 to refund Rs. 2500/- with 18 % annual interest from the date of deposit. He also claimed compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards his mental agony and financial loss along with Rs. 5,000/- for cost of litigation.
The case of the O.P No.1 as per his version is that as required under the IRDA , the policy terms and conditions specifically provides for a free Look Period of 15 days, during which period the policy owner is entitled to review the policy terms and conditions and request for a cancellation if dissatisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy. So, the refund of the amount paid as premium can not be sought as the request for the same is made beyond the free look period of 15 days. The Complainant in the present dispute ,filled up and signed the proposal Form bearing no. 18610378 dated 25-11-2014 and deposited Rs. 30,000/- for 15 years . As per the premium payment term mentioned in the policy schedule, the premium quotation and illustration statement, the policy contract is a long term contract. So, it could not be belief that the Complainant was not aware about the premium payment terms and conditions of the policy and he had simple put-on his signatures. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P No.1 for which the Complaint be dismissed with cost in the interest of justice.
The case of O.P No.3 and 4 as per their joint version is that the allegation made by the Complainant to the effect that he had deposited Rs.32,000/- on 21-02-2011 before O.P No.3 as per her advice is absolutely false . The allegations of the Complainant that the Insurance company engaged U. source at Bhubaneswar for marketing of his plan who started his office at Phulbani and O.P No.3 and 4 are working in the office of the Phulbani are absolutely false and fabricated . The O.P No.3 is a house wife and the O.P No.4 is her husband serving under ITDA under Govt of Odisha and he never advised anybody either to deposit or to promote the business under O.P No.1 & 2. The fact of the case is that as like as Opp. Party No.3 & 4 , the Complainant is also member of U. source with an intention to get more benefit in short span of life and the O.P No.3 and 4 are no way connected in the matter for which the Complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
The O.P no.2 was not pressed by the Complainant as is where about not known to him. As the registered notice sent to him returned back with postal remarks that no such addresse is found in the address given in the notice.
-3-
We have heard the complainant and the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of O.P No.1, 3 & 4. We have gone through the complaint petition, the version filed by the O.P No.1, the joint version filed by O.P No.3 and 4 and the evidence filed by the O.P No.1 in this case. We have also gone through the documents filed by both the parties in support of their case. No evidence was adduced by O.P No.3 and 4 to support their stand as reflected in their joint version. It is admitted fact that the O.P No.1 had received Rs. 30,000/- from the complainant and issued an Insurance policy bearing No. 18610378 dated 25-11-2014. It is also admitted by the O.P No.3 & 4 that they are the members of U. Source Company with an intention to get more benefit in a short span of life. So it can not be said that they are no way connected in the present affairs. On verification of documents it is seen that U. source was the IRDA licensed Adviser of the Reliance Insurance Company but very cunningly the O.P No.1 was avoiding the U. Source Company in his entire version and evidence. So it is crystal clear that the O.P No.2, the U. Source Company was marketing the Insurance policy of the Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. It is also seen from the receipt bearing No.2279 and from the deposit slip dated 21-02-2011 that the U. Source Company had received Rs. 32,500/- from the Complainant towards Reliance Insurance Policy and Registration fees. So, onus lies on the O.Ps to prove that they are not connected with the U. source company who was marketing the Insurance policy of O.P No.1. No evidence was also adduced by O.P No.3 & 4 that they are not connected with the U. source company. The U source company is an agency who was marketing for the interest of the O.P No.1 through O.P No.2 & 3. As per settled principle of law the Principal is always liable for wrongs done by its agents. So in the above circumstance the O.P No.1 has committed deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice by engaging the U. source Company who engaged agents for the collection of the Insurance Company. The C.P Act is a benevolent legislation for which the complaint should not be decided on mere technicalities. Principle of natural justice should be adopted to protect the property of the consumers. In the said situation the complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed on contest.
The O.P No 1 is directed to refund Rs. 32.500/- to the complainant along with 10% annum interest from the date of deposit it is from 21-02-2011 till the date of payment along with compensation of Rs. 10.000/- towards mental agony and financial loss and litigation cost. The above order be compiled within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Complainant is at liberty to initiate criminal case against O.P No.2, 3 & 4 if they were involved in the said business at the branch office of phulbani.
With the above direction the C.C is disposed of. Supply free copy of this order to both the parties at an early date.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
