Date of filing:21.12.2013
Date of disposal:26.08.2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC)
Smt. M.Sreelatha, B.A.,B.L., Lady Member
Tuesday, the 26th day of August, 2014
C.C.No.04/2014
Between:
Beldar Vali Basha,
S/o B.Mahaboob Sab,
Dargah Street,
Singanamala Post & Mandal,
Ananthapuramu District. … Complainant
Vs.
Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited,
Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,
1st Floor, Raghuveera Towers,
Main Road, Opp: Central Bank,
Ananthapuramu. … Opposite Party
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri M.Chandra Mouli, Advocate for the complainant and Sri M.Murali Mohan, Advocate for the Opposite Party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, President (FAC): - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party claiming a sum of Rs.32,935/- towards the balance of premium amount with interest till realization and Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The complainant is a permanent resident of Singanamala Village and Mandal of Ananthapuramu District. The complainant has taken an insurance policy bearing No.10350902 from the opposite party under Reliance Endowment Plan (Regular) for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and an yearly premium of Rs.23,515/- and period of insurance is for 20 years. The complainant paid three yearly premiums regularly to the opposite party. Subsequently due to financial problems in his business the complainant was unable to pay the further premiums and approached the opposite party requesting the opposite party to pay back the three premium amounts paid by him. Then the opposite party officials informed the complainant that would get an amount of Rs.16,619 only in case if he surrenders the above said policy. Then the complainant was shocked and questioned the opposite party officials for which they replied that in the event of surrendering the policy prior to maturity the policyholder has to forego the surrender charges as prescribed in the policy conditions. The complainant being an uneducated and having no knowledge of English he could not notice the terms and conditions of the policy. Subsequently the complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite party on 21.10.2013 requesting the opposite party to pay the entire premium amounts paid by him and the notice was served on the opposite party. Then the opposite party has sent a sum of Rs.37,610.61 vide Cheque bearing No.663582 dt.24.10.2013 to the complainant as full surrender value for the above said policy. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for the balance of Rs.32,935/- towards total premium paid by the complainant.
3. The opposite party filed counter stating that it is true that the complainant has taken an insurance policy from the opposite party by paying yearly premium of Rs.23,515/- for three years and the policy commenced on 25.10.2006. Further the opposite party submitted that the complainant has failed to pay the subsequent yearly premiums accrued after 25.10.2009 hence the policy was lapsed. The opposite party submitted that the complainant after five years after the lapse of the policy has submitted surrender forms for the above said policy. Then the opposite party on receipt of the surrender request within nine days released the surrender value of Rs.37,610-61 and dispatched a Cheque for the said amount to the complainant. The opposite party further submitted that the surrender value paid to the complainant is more than the guaranteed 30% as mentioned in the terms and conditions of the policy and further clarified that Rs.16,619/- mentioned by the complainant in the complaint as it is the fund value as on the date of surrender of the policy but not surrender value. Further the opposite party submitted that the fund value depends upon various factors basing on the performance of the fund and the factors influencing the capital market. Further the opposite party submitted that it is not true to say that the complainant was not aware of the terms and conditions of the policy and that he was misguided at the time of taking the policy. The opposite party submitted that there was no legal notice received by the opposite party and it is the complainant who is misguiding the Forum for wrongful gain. Further the opposite party submitted that the complainant has received the surrender value of Rs.37,610.61 which is more than 30% of the total premium paid as guaranteed under the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the opposite party is not liable to pay any sum as claimed by the complainant.
4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
ii) To what relief?
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed his evidence on affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A7 documents. On behalf of the opposite party, the opposite party filed evidence on affidavit and marked Ex.B1 to B3 documents.
6. Heard both sides
7. POINT NO 1:- The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant has taken an insurance policy from the opposite party by paying an yearly premium of Rs.23,515/- on 25.10.2006 the sum assured under the policy is Rs.5,00,000/-. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant has paid three yearly premiums of Rs.23,515/- regularly the total sum paid is Rs.70,545/- to the opposite party. The counsel for the complainant submitted that due to financial problems the complainant was unable to pay the further premiums and requested the opposite party to pay back the three premium amounts paid by the complainant. Then the opposite party officials informed that the will get an amount of Rs.16,619/- only in case if he surrenders the above said policy. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant was shocked from the opposite party is reply that only a sum of Rs.16,619/- will be paid if the complainant surrenders the policy and questioned the opposite party that he has paid a sum of Rs.70,545/- and he has to get the entire sum he paid to the opposite party. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite party on 21.10.2013 requesting the opposite party to pay the entire premium amounts paid by the complainant. Then the opposite party instead of paying the entire premium amounts only a sum of Rs.37,610.61 was sent to the complainant as full surrender value of the said policy. The counsel for the complainant argued that the opposite party has failed to pay the entire premium amounts to the complainant and caused deficiency of service. Hence the opposite party is liable to pay the balance of premium amount paid by the complainant along with interest and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
8. The counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no dispute with regard to issuing of the policy to the complainant and there is no dispute with regard to payment of three yearly premium installments by the complainant regularly. The counsel for the opposite party submitted that as the complainant has failed to pay the subsequent yearly premiums the policy got lapsed and as per the terms and conditions of the policy the complainant has failed to revive the lapsed policy and in the year 2013 made a request by surrendering his policy. The counsel for the opposite party argued that the complainant has paid three yearly installments regularly and he was well aware of the terms and conditions of the policy and discontinued the payment of subsequent premiums hence the policy got lapsed. The counsel for the opposite party argued that as per the terms and conditions of the policy 30% of the total premium paid upon surrender irrespective of the fund value as on the date of surrender will be paid back.
9. Further the counsel for the opposite party argued that: what if a person discontinue the policy. We provide you the option to surrender your policy and receive the surrender value. If your policy has accumulated any bonuses, then you will also receive the cash value of that total amount upon surrendering your policy. Your regular premium plan acquires a surrender value after three years premium has been paid and after three years have elapsed from the date of commencement of policy. We guarantee a minimum surrender value of 30% of the total premiums paid (excluding any extra premiums and premiums for riders) subsequent to the first year premium, plus the cash surrender value of any vested bonuses.
10. The opposite party is not liable to refund the entire premium paid by the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy. Further the counsel for the opposite party submitted that even as per the surrender value the complainant has received more than the 30% of the total premium paid by the complainant. Hence the claim of the complainant that the opposite party is liable to pay the balance of the sum of three premiums paid i.e., Rs.70,545/- surrender value received Rs.37,610.61=32,935/- is not tenable and further the counsel for the opposite party argued that the complainant is not entitled to any sum as claimed and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
11. After hearing the arguments of both sides and perusing the documents there is no dispute with regard to issuing of policy by the opposite party to the complainant. Further there is no dispute with regard to payment of three yearly premiums by the complainant. The request by the complainant to refund his three yearly premiums after five years after lapse of policy hence as he was in financial crisis he could not pay the fourth installment. Then the opposite party officials told the complainant that the total amount made by the complainant for three yearly premiums cannot be refunded as the complainant failed to pay the fourth installment and the policy was in lapsed condition and further advised the complainant that as per terms and conditions of the policy the opposite party will refund only the surrender value. As seen from the arguments the complainant was unable to pay the fourth installment and he made a request to refund the premiums amounts paid by the complainant after four years after lapsation but as per the terms and conditions of the policy the opposite party is liable to pay only 30% of the surrender value of the premiums paid in case the complainant surrender the policy but the plea taken by the complainant that the entire amount paid by the complainant should be paid back to the complainant as he was financial crisis cannot be considered as the terms and conditions of the policy are binding by both the insurer and the insured.
12. It is evident from the arguments of the complainant counsel that the complainant was in financial troubles and unable to pay the fourth yearly installment and the policy was lapsed due to nonpayment of the yearly premium. Subsequently the complainant was silent for four years and made the request for refund of the premiums paid by him for which the opposite party officials advised that as the policy was in a lapsed condition only a surrender of the premium paid will be refunded to the complainant. Later on 21.10.2013 the complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite party demanding refund of the premiums paid to the complainant. Ex.A5 is the legal notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party and Ex.A6 is the letter along with Cheque bearing No.663582 dt.24.10.2013 for a sum of Rs.37610.61which was sent to the complainant as full surrender value.
13. This shows that the opposite party has promptly paid the full surrender value immediately after receiving the legal notice from the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy only 30% of the premiums paid will be refunded if the policyholder surrenders the policy. Hence, there is no lapse on the part of the opposite party and there is no deficiency of service to the complainant. In the above circumstances we are of the view that the opposite party has not committed any deficiency of service to the complainant and not liable to pay any amount as claimed by the complainant.
14. In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 26th day of August, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
NIL
ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTY
-NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 Original first premium receipt No.Q3001995 dt.25.10.2006 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A2 Original first premium receipt No.PC0000714627 dt.02.11.2007 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A3 Original first premium receipt No.WC0002302024 dt.06.11.2008 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A4 Customer acknowledgement issued by the opposite party.
Ex.A5 Office copy of the legal notice dt.21.10.2013 got issued by the
complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.A6 Photo copy of letter along with Cheque bearing No.663582
dt.24.10.2013 for a sum of Rs.37,610.61.
Ex.A7 Postal receipt.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
Ex.B1 True copy of the policy schedule.
Ex.B2 True copy of policy terms and conditions.
Ex.B3 True copy of surrender/payment out form dt.17.10.2013.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
