O R D E R
(By Sri A. Radha Krishna, President on behalf of the Bench)
This complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties to claiming an amount of Rs.28,284/- being the amount of premium amount paid by the complainant, damages and sought of the complaint.
1 The complainant laid this complaint interalia contending that she took a policy from the 2nd opposite party for sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for a period of 25 years payable @ 7,429/- per annum. She paid upto 3 premiums and later could not pay the amount due to financial difficulties. When approached the opposite parties promised to return the amount after verifying the records and requested her to wait for sometime.
2 Later she also issued legal notice demanding return of the amount. Having received the notice the opposite parties neither replied nor paid the amount.
3 The opposite parties two and three are remained exparte, the opposite party one filed written version disputing the claim of the complainant. They admit the 3 premiums paid by the complainant but disputed her claim that she approached them for return of the amount. According to them, the complainant never approached with a written request along with original bond. Their version is also as per the procedure if the policy holder wants to surrender policy, they must make a written request along with original policy bond. It is also their contention upon such surrender the complainant is eligible for 30% of the total amount of the premiums paid less premium for the 1st year and all extra premiums paid and additional premiums paid for the rider benefits as per condition 7. The opposite party one quoted the conditions 5 & 7 of terms and conditions of the policy.
4 The points arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is any deficiency of service as complained by the complainant?
- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the amount sought in the complaint?
- To what relief?
5. Point No.1: To substantiate her contention the complainant apart from filing chief affidavit exhibited 5 documents marked as Ex.A1 to A5. Ex.A1 is the 1st premium receipt for sum of Rs. 7,428/-. Ex.A2 is policy schedule. Ex.A3 & A4 are deposit acknowledgment receipts. Ex.A5 is the office copy of lawyer notice along with postal receipts. On behalf of opposite party one E.Sridhar, Assistant General Manager, filed proof affidavit but no documents were marked on their side.
6 It is an admitted fact that the complainant paid 3 premiums and later failed to pay the remaining premiums. As per the contention of opposite party one, the complainant did not approach them with any request along with original policy and as such there is no deficiency of service on their part. Further, it is also their version even in case, the complainant paid 3 premiums she is entitled for a sum equivalent to 30% of the paid up premiums excluding the amount of 1st premium and other additional premiums if any paid. Though, the opposite party quoted the terms and conditions 5 & 7 admittedly none of the parties produced the policy containing terms and conditions of the policy.
7 It is no doubt true that as the complainant approached this Forum she should have produced the policy bond containing terms and conditions. But it does not obviate the opposite party from producing the terms and conditions as it is the opposite parties which issued policy and hence they could have produce the terms and conditions of the policy which are available in their office. Thus, this Forum is handicapped in appreciating the contention of the opposite party one that the complainant is entitled only to a sum equivalent to 30% as indicated above.
8. The another contention that the complainant did not approach them with written request along with the bond is also untenable. Admittedly, the complainant issued original of Ex.A5 lawyer’s notice to the opposite parties and having received they did not issue any reply. Even, opposite party one did not choose to deny the issuance of notice by the complainant. If, they issued reply and demanded production of bond the things would be otherwise. Thus for silence on their part now the opposite party cannot contend that the complainant did not approach them with a written request. Thus, there is a deficiency of service manifest on the part of opposite parties in this case. Hence the point is answered in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
9. Points No. 2&3: In the result, award is passed for sum of Rs. 28,284/- [rupees twenty eight thousand two hundred and eighty four only] being the premium amounts, damages and cost of litigation in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties 1 to 3 and they are directed to pay this amount within 2 months from the date of this order. Otherwise, the said amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till realization.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 10th day of November, 2014
Sd/- xxxx Sd/- xxxx Sd/- xxxxxx
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For complainant : None For opposite party : None
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For complainant:-
Ex.A1 28.09.2006 1st premium receipt for sum of Rs. 7,428/- issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A2 28.09.2006 Policy schedule
Ex.A3 04.06.2007 Deposit acknowledgment receipt
Ex.A4 30.01.2008 Deposit acknowledgment receipt
Ex.A5 30.09.2011 Office copy of lawyer notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties along with postal receipts.
For opposite parties:- - NIL -
Sd/- xxxx Sd/- xxxx Sd/- xxxxxx
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
