Order No.  14  dt.  02/12/2019

            The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant got motivated to agree to a proposal for investing in ‘money back policy’ in favour of himself  on 15/03/2017 by an agent of M/s. Reliance Nippon Limited and issued a cheque of Rs. 1.0 Lakh in favour of the said company, which was deducted from the account of the complainant vide transaction in the A/c No. 400610110000 on 17.03.2017. On getting the amount of Rs.99,000.32 M/s Reliance Nippon life insurance company limited issued a receipt no. D2306969 accepting the proposal of the complainant on 21/03/2017. According to the receipt the complainant was allowed Reliance guarantee money back plan for a policy term of 20 years against premium paying terms of 15 years with yearly premium of Rs.99,000.32. After receiving the policy complainant was very much astounded and shocked to see that a man having age 79 years was asked to pay Rs.1.0 Lakh each year for 15 years. Complainant had wanted to deposit an amount of Rs.1.0 Lakh only for once with expectation of getting high rate of interest only. Being a senior citizen complainant had started feeling stupefied and dejected with such action by issuing a policy of long term recurrent payment. Complainant immediately visited the office of the o.p. company and asked to close the account on 29/03/2017 by submitting a complaint. But the o.p. did nothing in favour of the complainant. Rather they led the complainant astray and talked lame excuse to the complainant by saying that they had tried to contact with complainant through a phone number which was not known to the complainant. Being aggrieved by the mode and gesture of the personnel of the o.p. company complainant knocked Grievance Redressal Officer of the o.p. company on 17/07/2017. But such attempt of the complainant was also proved to be a futile one. Finding no other alternative complainant lodged this complaint praying direction upon the o.p. to refund of Rs.99,000.32 with interest and compensation of Rs.4.0 Lakh for harassment and mental agony as well as litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-.

            PR & TR showed that notice could not have been served upon the op-1 & op-2.Ops were deemed to be serviced  through publication of notices in the daily newspaper but they did not contest this case by filing w/v.  As such, the case has been proceeded exparte against the o.p-1 & op-2.

            In order to prove the case the complainant sworn an affidavit of evidence in support of the contention of the complaint and filed the documents in support of his claim including the photocopies of the policy issued by the o.p. Due to unchallenged testimony of the complaint there is no scope to disbelieve the submission of the complainant and therefore it should be accepted and necessary order is to be passed accordingly.

            Considering the submissions of the complainant and on perusal of the materials on record it is evident that complainant  invested for a ‘money back policy’ in favour of himself  on 15/03/2017 by an agent of M/s. Reliance Nippon Limited and issued a cheque of Rs. 1.0 Lakh in favour of the said company, which was debited from the account of the complainant through A/c No. 400610110000594 on 17.03.2017. It is also evident that M/s Reliance Nippon life insurance company limited issued a receipt no. D2306969 accepting the proposal of the complainant on 21/03/2017. According to the receipt it is very clear that the complainant was allowed Reliance guarantee money back plan for a policy term of 20 years against premium paying terms of 15 years with yearly premium of Rs.99,000.32. It is stated by the complainant that after receiving the policy complainant was very much shocked to see that a man having age 79 years was asked to pay Rs.1.0 Lakh each year for 15 years. Complainant invested the amount of Rs.1.0 Lakh as fixed deposit with the expectation of getting prevalent rate of interest only. Being a senior citizen complainant had felt stupefied and dejected on getting the policy of prolong period of yearly investment for 15 years during which there would be every possibility of the complainant to succumb to death. Complainant immediately asked the op-1 to close the policy on 29/03/2017 by submitting a complaint. But the o.p. did nothing in favour of the complainant. Rather they had tried the complainant to mislead so that complainant might missed  the opportunity of redemption of his money within free look period and talked lame excuse to the complainant by saying  that they had tried to contact with complainant through a phone number which was not known to the complainant. Thereafter, complainant knocked Grievance Redressal Officer of the o.p. company on 17/07/2017. But op-company did not responded positively. Finding no other alternative complainant filed this case.   

            On the basis of the said evidences on record it is evident that op-company adopted unfair trade practices in issuing the policy as well as in canceling the policy which have been surrendered within free look period in the event of disagreeing with the policy terms and condition and since no challenge have been made by o.ps. to controvert the demand of the complainant we, therefore, have no other alternative but to accept the case of the complainant. Thus the case is disposed of accordingly.

Hence, it is ordered.

            that the case no. 342/2018 is allowed ex-parte with cost against the o.p. The o.ps are jointly and/ or severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.99,000/-(Rupees Ninety Nine Thousand) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand) within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 8% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.