IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,

Dated this the 13^th day of October, 2014.

Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member-I)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member-II)

C.C.No.46/2014 (Filed on 24.04.2014)

Between:

1. Presannan,

Prajith Nivas,

Kodumon East.P.O.,

Adoor Taluk,

Pathanamthitta Dist.,

Pin – 691 555.

    2. Ajitha Presannan,

         W/o. Presannan,

             -do.  –do.

(By Adv. C. Prakash)                                             ….         Complainants

And:

1. Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

H Block, 1^st Floor,

Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City,

Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 710,

Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer &

Executive Director.

    2.  Anup Rau,

Chief Executive Officer &

Executive Director,

Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

H Block, 1^st Floor,

Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City,

Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 710.

3. Srinivasan Iyengar,

        Chief Operating Officer,

     -do.  –do.

    4. Manoranjan Sahoo,

         Head of Agency,

              -do.  –do.

    5. Branch Manager,

        Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

        Branch at Trinity Complex,

         Near Andhra Bank, 1^st Floor,

         T.K. Road, Pathanamthitta.

    (By Adv. Shalu Shori & Binu. R

     for Opp. Parties 1 to 5)

    6. India Info Line Marketing Services Ltd.,

         Reg. Office at IFL Centre, B Wing,

         Trade Centre, Kamala City,

         Senapati Bapat Marg, Lowerparel,

         Mumbai – 400 013, Rep. by its-

         Managing Director &

         Chief Executive Officer.

(By Adv. B.S. Suresh Kumar)

    7. Branch Head,

         India Info Line Marketing Services Ltd.,

         Branch at 2^nd Floor, Ali Complex,

         Pathanamthitta Road,

         Pandalam P.O., Pin – 689 501.                    ….   Opposite parties

O R D E R

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):

                 Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

                 2. Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:  1^st and 2^nd complainants are husband and wife and opposite parties are Reliance Life Insurance Company and its officers and their agents.  During January 2013 some authorized sales personnel of the 6^th and 7^th opposite party canvassed the complainants for taking an insurance policy by explaining the various attractive benefits of the said policy.  Believing the words of them complainants took 2 policies  by paying Rs.99,999/- and they had put their signatures on the proposal form along with some other papers having the complainants signatures as directed by them.  Thereafter the complainant’s received the policy certificate etc. from the opposite parties.  On verification of the policy documents complainant noticed that the benefits shown in the policy documents are different from the benefits explained by the sales personnel’s at the time of taking the policy.  Immediately, the complainant contacted the 7^th opposite party and enquired about the reasons of the difference in the policy benefits.  They told that it may be a mistake and the complainants can change the policy to similar other policies and asked for returning the policy documents.  Accordingly the complainants returned the policy documents to the 7^th opposite party who kept the same for several months without taking any actions by saying lame excuses.  Thereafter the complainant managed to obtain the documents from the 7^th opposite party and made enquiries with 1^st opposite party about the various aspects of the issues.  Thereafter the 1^st opposite party directed the complainant to submit necessary signed papers for processing the complainants’ issue.  Thereafter complainants sent  letters to the 1^st opposite party requesting for canceling the policy for the willful cheating and misrepresentation of the sales personnel’s and on the realization of the fact that the policy in question is not beneficial for the complainants.  But the 1^st opposite party is evading the complainant’s demand for cancellation with petty reasons.  The above said acts of the opposite parties is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, which caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainants and opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.  Hence this complaint for the realization of a total amount of Rs.2,13,018/- under various heads and cost of this proceedings jointly and severally from the opposite parties.

                 3. Opposite parties 1 to 5 filed a common version with the following main contentions:  They admitted the issuance of the policy to the complainant and according to them complainants took the policy voluntarily after knowing the terms and conditions of the policy.  They had also signed all the records and documents that are necessary in this transaction and the opposite parties did not acted against any of the terms and conditions of the policy in question and they have not committed any violations of the terms and conditions of the policy.  So there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant.  Further, the complainants approached the opposite parties for the refund of the premium amount given by the complainants after 10 months from the date of issuance of the policy.  The said demand is not allowable as per the terms and conditions of the policy as it is against the specific condition stipulated in the terms and conditions of the policy, that the policy holders are entitled to cancel the policy within the free look period i.e., 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy certificate and the connected documents.  Thus in all respects this complaint is not allowable as there is no deficiency in service from their part.  With the above contentions, opposite parties 1 to 5 prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost. 

                 4. The main contention in the version of the 6^th opposite party is that 6^th and 7^th opposite parties are the authorized agents of the other opposite parties and as such they approached the complainants for taking a policy of the 1^st opposite party and after discussions complainant voluntarily took the policy.  In the said transactions, there is no cheating, no coercion, no inducement or any misrepresentation from their part.  Complainant took the policy voluntarily after fully knowing the terms and conditions of the policy.  All allegations that goes against the above is false and none of the opposite parties including the answering opposite parties has not committed any illegal acts or deficiency in service as alleged by the complainants.  The complainants demand for the return of the premium amount is very much belated and is after 10 months from the date of free look period provided in the terms and conditions of the policy and hence the complaint is not allowable against the answering opposite parties.  With the above contentions, 6^th opposite party also prays for dismissing the complaint against them with cost as they have not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant. 

                 5. 7^th opposite party is exparte. 

                 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?

                 7. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A13 and B1.  After closure of evidence, opposite parties 1 to 5 filed their written argument note and the parties were heard. 

                 8. The Point:-  The complainant’s case is that he along with his wife had taken insurance policy of the 1^st opposite party by paying Rs.99,999/-.  At the time of taking the policy the complainant enquired about the details of the terms and conditions of the policy and the benefits of the policy and also asked the brochures of the said policy.  But they have not provided the brochures.  Further they have suppressed the real fact and misguided the complainants by saying exaggerated benefits and induced the complainants to take the policy and they have also obtained the complainants signatures in blank papers. Later, when the policy certificates and other policy documents are received complainants realized that the policy issued by the opposite parties is not the policy demanded by the complainants and the benefits of the issued policy is not par with benefits offered at the time of taking the policy.  So the complainants realized that they were cheated by the opposite parties.  So the complainants demanded the cancellation of the policy and the return of the premium amount paid by them.  But opposite parties have not allowed the complainants demands, which is a grave deficiency in service and opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.  Therefore, the complainants prays for allowing the complaint.

                 9. In order to prove the case of the complainants, 1^st complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination for and on behalf of the 2^nd complainant also along with 13 documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit he was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A13.  Ext.A1 is the letter dated 26.01.2013 issued by the 7^th opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A2 is the print out of the opposite parties showing the details of the policy benefits.  Ext.A3 is the receipt dated 27.01.2013 showing receipt of Rs.99,999/- issued by the 7^th opposite party.  Ext.A4 is the accident policy issued by the National Insurance Company in the name of the complainants.  Ext.A5 is the policy certificate issued by the 1^st opposite party in the name of the complainant.  Ext.A6 is the insurance policy certificate of the 1^st opposite party issued in the name of the 2^nd complainant.  Ext.A7 is the letter dated 22.11.2013 issued by the 1^st opposite party in the name of the 1^st complainant.  Ext.A8 is the letter dated 22.11.2013 issued by the 1^st opposite party in the name of the 2^nd complainant.  Ext.A9 is the copy of the E-mail sent to the 1^st complainant by the 1^st opposite party.  Ext.A10 is the E-mail reply dated 06.12.2013 issued from the customer service centre of the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.  Ext.A11 is a copy of the letter sent by the 1^st complainant for canceling the policy.  Ext.A12 is a copy of the letter sent by the 2nd complainant for canceling the policy.  Ext.A13 is the copy of the letter dated 27.01.2014 issued by the 1^st opposite party in the name of the 2^nd complainant.

                 10. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties is that they have not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant.  The complainants took the policy voluntarily after fully knowing the terms and conditions of the policy and the opposite parties never misrepresented or misguided or persuaded the complainant for taking the policy.  As per the terms and conditions of the policy, policy holders are entitled to cancel the policy within the free look period i.e, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents.  The policy issued to the complainant is that particular policy demanded by the complainants.  The complainant requested the cancellation of the policy after 10 months from the date of issuance of the policy documents to the complainant.  In the circumstances, opposite parties are not in a position to cancel the policy and to return the premium amount, as the policy conditions did not permit the opposite parties to do so.  With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for dismissing the complaint. 

                 11. However, opposite parties has not adduced any oral evidence in their favour.  But they have cross-examined the complainant and filed 1 document which was marked as Ext.B1 through the complainant which is the copy of the brochure in respect of Ext.A5 policy. 

                 12. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the parties have no dispute with regard to the issuance of the policy in question.  But the complainants’ allegation is that policy issued by the opposite parties is not the policy demanded by the complainant and the policy benefits offered at the time of taking the policy is not par with the policy issued and the complainant was misrepresented by the opposite parties for taking the policy by providing false information.  The complainant also alleged that the opposite parties obtained certain blank signed papers from the complainant and the opposite parties used the said signed blank papers for issuing the policy.  But the contentions of the opposite parties are totally denying the allegations of the complainant.  However, on a perusal of the available evidence it is seen that the complainant has not proved his allegations such as misrepresentation, cheating etc. with cogent evidence.  At the same time, Ext.A5 and A6 policy documents clearly shows that the complainants had put their signature properly.  In the absence of any evidence to show that the said signatures were put by the complainants under any compelling circumstances, they cannot disown the terms and conditions seen above the said signatures.  Further, Exts.A9, A11 and A12 clearly shows that the complainants made their demand for canceling the policy was submitted after 10 months from the date of taking the policy.  This goes to shows that the complainants had no grievances for 10 months in respect of their policy.  What prevented the complainants from applying for the cancellation of the policy within the free look period as provided in the policy documents which was also seen accepted by the complainants by putting their signatures in the policy documents.  In the circumstances and in the absence of any allegation of fraud against opposite parties, we could not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant.  However, the act of the opposite parties in not returning the premium amount paid by the complainants by saying that the policy conditions did not permit them return the premium amount to the complainants cannot be justified.  The said stand of the opposite parties is also not supported with any legally accepted evidence except the terms and conditions printed by the opposite parties and the said condition is found to be an unreasonable condition.  Further, it is also not proved that all the terms and conditions of the policy is brought to the notice of the complainants by the agents of the 1^st opposite party when they approached the complainant.  If they have explained all the terms and conditions in the correct perspective and in the true sense the response from the complainant would have been different.  So we cannot find any justification in retaining the entire premium amount with opposite parties in spite of the request of the complainants for returning the premium amount.  So we find that the further retention of the premium amount is an illegal act and they are bound to return the premium amount to the complainants.  Therefore, this complaint can be allowed partly. 

                 13. In the result, this complaint is partly allowed thereby the 1^st opposite party is directed to return the premium amount after deducting a nominal service charge and the premium spent for taking the personal accident policy for the complainants from National Insurance Company Ltd. which should not be more than Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) at any circumstances to the complainants within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainants are allowed to realize the entire premium amount of Rs.99,999/- (Rupees Ninety Nine Thousand Nine hundred and ninety nine only) from the 1^st opposite party with 10% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount.  In the nature and circumstances of this case, no orders for cost and compensation.

                 Declared in the Open Forum on this the 13^th day of October, 2014.

                                                                                             (Sd/-)

                                                                                      Jacob Stephen,

                                                                                         (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member - I)     :   (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member - II)        :   (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Presannan. R

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Letter dated 26.01.2013 issued by the 7^th opposite party in the  

        name of the complainant.

A2 :  Print out of the opposite parties showing the details of the  

        policy benefits. 

A3 :  Receipt dated 27.01.2013 showing receipt of Rs.99,999/- issued

        by the 7^th opposite party.  

A4 :  Accident policy issued by the National Insurance Company in  

        the name of the complainant. 

A5 :  Policy certificate issued by the 1^st opposite party in the name of  

        the complainant. 

A6 :  Insurance policy certificate of the 1^st opposite party issued in  

        the name of the 2^nd complainant. 

A7 :  Letter dated 22.11.2013 issued by the 1^st opposite party in the  

        name of the 1^st complainant. 

A8  :  Letter dated 22.11.2013 issued by the 1^st opposite party in the  

         name of the 2^nd complainant. 

A9  : Copy of the e.mail sent to the 1^st complainant by the 1^st  

         opposite party. 

A10 : E.mail reply dated 06.12.2013 issued from the customer  

         service centre of the 1^st opposite party to the complainant. 

A11 :  Copy of the letter sent by the 1^st complainant for canceling the  

          policy. 

A12 :  Copy of the letter sent by the 2nd complainant for canceling

          the policy. 

A13 :  Copy of the letter dated 27.01.2014 issued by the 1^st opposite  

          party in the name of the 2^nd complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1  : Copy of the brochure in Ext.A5 policy.

                                                                                      (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Presannan, Prajith Nivas, Kodumon East.P.O.,

           Adoor Taluk, Pathanamthitta Dist., Pin – 691 555.

               (2) Ajitha Presannan,    W/o. Presannan,  -do.  –do.

1. Chief Executive Officer & Executive Director, Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., H Block, 1^st Floor,

           Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai,       

           Maharashtra – 400 710.

               (4) Anup Rau, Chief Executive Officer & Executive Director,

            Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., H Block, 1^st Floor,

            Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai,    

            Maharashtra – 400 710.

           (5) Srinivasan Iyengar, Chief Operating Officer,    -do.  –do.

               (6) Manoranjan Sahoo, Head of Agency,    -do.  –do.

               (7) Branch Manager, Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

                    Branch at Trinity Complex, Near Andhra Bank,

                    1^st Floor, T.K. Road, Pathanamthitta.

               (8) Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer,

                    India Info Line Marketing Services Ltd.,

                     Reg. Office at IFL Centre, B Wing, Trade Centre, Kamala  

                    City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lowerparel,

                     Mumbai – 400 013.

               (9) Branch Head, India Info Line Marketing Services Ltd.,

                     Branch at 2^nd Floor, Ali Complex, Pathanamthitta Road,

                     Pandalam P.O., Pin – 689 501.

               (10) The Stock File.