Karnataka

Mysore

cc/655/2014

Sri.M.S.Panichethan - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

23 Jul 2015

ORDER

Sri H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY. President, 1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the C.P.Act for refund of premium amount of `33,498/- with interest at 12% p.a. and for compensation of `2,00,000/- by way of damages for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and to pay damages of `50,000/- towards mental agony and legal expenses. 2. The present complainant has proposed a life insurance policy with opposite party through an agent by name Vishwanath. As per the policy the risk commences from 29.03.2013. Further, the complainant is at liberty to cancel the policy having free look option within 15 days from the date of receipt of policy document. Accordingly, there is some corrections in the policy relating to P.E.P. Thereby the present complainant intends to cancel the policy and submitted the letter to the opposite party on 05.04.2013, in this wrongly date is typed as 05.05.2013 instead of 05.04.2013 and there was correspondence with the opposite party. Inspite of it, the opposite party has not considered his requests. Hence, there is deficiency in service, as such sought for allowing this complaint. 3. The opposite party No.1 has appeared through his advocate. The O.P.No.2 served with notice, absent. placed exparte. 4. The opposite party No.1 has repudiated the claim made by the complainant stating that the complainant has not exercised his authority relating to free look option. Thereby, the opposite party No.1 sought for dismissal of the complaint. 5. On the contentions of both parties, they submitted their respective affidavits. After hearing both sides, this matter is posted for orders. 6. The points that arise for our consideration are as follows:- 1. Whether the complainant has established that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and thereby he is entitled for the claim made in the complaint? 2. What order? 7. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows: Point No.1 :- Partly in the Affirmative Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following :: R E A S O N S :: 8. Point No.1:- In support of the respective contentions, the parties have submitted their affidavits. The evidence affidavit of complainant reveals that there was proposal through the agent of the opposite party for a life insurance policy and there was free look option within the said stipulated period, the complainant is at liberty to cancel the policy and further it is submitted that to one clause i.e. P.E.P. there is some corrections by the opposite party. In spite of bringing this to the notice of the opposite parties, they failed to correct the policy. Thereby, he has not intend to continue the policy in question by paying the remaining premium. 9. The copy of insurance policy is also produced. In this at page No.3, there is question to the proposer to the effect “Are you a Politically Exposed Person (PEP) or a close relative of PEP. As per answer of complainant to this question is “YES”. But, the complainant’s agent has corrected this as “NO” subsequently. Thereby, he do not want to continue the policy. Further, the complainant wrote a letter dated 29.03.2013 for correction in PEP relating to the status and further it is the contention of the present complainant that he has submitted letter on 05.04.2013 to the opposite party that his father is a retired officer of Judicial Department. In this document, date is typed as 05.05.2013 and there is signature and date of somebody else, it bears date as 05.04.2013. The complainant asserts that it is the signature and date mentioned by the opposite party. Ofcourse, relating to this document, the opposite party also produced the similar document, which do not bears the seal or the date. This is at Annexure-D of opposite party. The complainant further submits that by concealing the endorsement on this letter, the opposite parties have took the Xerox copy as per Annexure-D. If there is no endorsement as contended by the opposite party, certainly the opposite parties have produced the original of Annexure-D. Thereby, at this stage, it entertain doubt in the mind of this Forum. There is some foul play by the opposite party, it amounts to unfair trade practice. Further, the contention taken by the opposite party, cannot be accepted and as such there is deficiency in service i.e. to be compensated. Hence, our finding on point No.1 is partly affirmative. 10. Point No.2:- In view of findings recorded on the Point No.1, the complainant is entitled for the refund of premium amount of `33,498/- with interest at 12% p.a. as claimed and also for compensation of `5,000/- towards unfair trade practice and for mental agony and `2,000/- towards legal expenses. Hence, we pass the following :: O R D E R :: 1. The complaint is partly allowed. 2. The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay jointly and severally a sum of `33,498/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 29.03.2013 till the date of payment. 3. Further the opposite parties are directed to pay jointly and severally compensation of `5,000/- towards unfair trade practice and for mental agony and `2,000/- towards legal expenses within one month from the date of this order. In default, the opposite parties shall pay interest at the rate of 10% p.a. on the said sum of `7,000/-. 4. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite parties shall undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986. 5. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules. (Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 23rd day of July 2015) (H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY)

PRESIDENT

(M.V.BHARATHI)

MEMBER

(DEVAKUMARA.M.C.)

MEMBER