DATE OF FILING : 02.12.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 12.02.2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 30.11.2015.
Golam Rasul Halder,
son of Munnaf Halder,
of village Alipukur, P.S. Uluberia,
District Howrah..................................................................... COMPLAINANT.
1. Sk. Md. Shiraj,
village Sijberia, P.O. and P.S. Uluberia,
near SDO Office,
Howrah 711316.
2. The Branch Manager,
Avi a Life Insurance,
125/1, Park Street, ( 2nd floor ),
Kolkata 700012.
3. Aviva Life Insurance,
5P, M.G. Road, ( 1st floor),
H.M.C. Stadium Complex, Howrah Maidan,
Howrah 711101.
4. Aviva Life Insurance,
HMD Regent Square ( 5th floor ),
Gurgaon Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon, Haryana,
PIN 122001.........................................................................OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- The complainant namely, Golam Rasul Halder, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the O.Ps. to refund the money so deposited in the policy in question along with compensation amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- for causing physical and mental harassment and other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
- The brief facts of the case is that the complainant purchased one life insurance policy being no. LLG1105142 on payment of Rs. 3,000/- as quarterly premium on being persuaded by the agent, herein o.p. no. 1, of o.p. no. 2. O.p. no. 2 also issued policy document in favour of the complainant. Since the date of commencement i.e., 20.08.2004 the complainant had been depositing all premium till 2007 without any default. The policy has a lock-in period of three years. Due to financial stringency in the year 2013, he decided to withdraw his deposited amount with interest as the lock in period of three years was over. Complainant went to the office of the o.p. no. 2 and he was surprised to know that his policy cannot be proceeded in the terms of three year lock in period because he was defaulter in payment of two installments of Rs. 6,000/- in the year 2005 and Rs. 18,000/- in the year 2007. Complainant requested the o.ps. to look into the matter as he paid all the amounts regularly but they did not pay any heed. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative complainant filed this complaint with the aforesaid prayers. Hence the case.
- Notices were served. The o.p. nos. 2, 3 & 4 appeared and filed written version. The o.p. no. 1 did not appear and file any written version. So the case was heard on contest against o.p. nos. 2, 3 & 4 and ex parte against o.p. no. 1.
- Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief and compensation as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the written version filed by the o.p. nos. 2, 3 & 4 along with the documents and noted their contents. Denying and disputing all material allegations of complainant, it is the specific plea taken by the o.p. no. 1 that the instant insurance policy is a “Life Long Unit Linked” which is a market related policy. The fund value of the policy in question depends upon the day’s NAV. Moreover, the instant policy has got no characteristic like “Three year lock in period” vide para 3 of written version’s “Parawise Reply”, which is nothing but a concocted story and after completely understanding the terms and conditions of the policy, complainant paid the 1st premium and o.p. no. 2 also issued the policy document and complainant had full opportunity to cancel the policy within the free look period which he did not do. So it is well understood that the complainant had accepted the terms and conditions of the policy. Complainant paid the premium upto 30.4.2007. Accordingly on account of non payment of premium the policy stood terminated on 16.5.2012. Here we take a pause. If, even for argument sake, we accept that complainant paid the premium regularly only upto 30.4.2007, the policy in question got terminated due to non payment of premium on 16.05.2012 What the o.ps. were doing for such a long period of five years ? It is further stated by the o.p. nos. 2 to 4that only in 2013 complainant approached the o.p. nos. 2 to 4to refund his fund value lying under the policy. And o.ps. 2 to 5 also vide their letter dated 19.9.2013 informed the complainant that policy stood terminated on account of non payment of premiums and the fund value had gone down to ‘negative’. But surprisingly o.ps. have neither filed the copy of letter dated 19.9.2013 nor submitted the day’s NAV dated 16.05.2012 for the policy in question. So it is not tenable in the eye of law that the fund value of the policy was ‘negative’ on 16.5.2012. Moreover, o.ps. no. 2 to 4 have stated thatthey got the premium upto 30.04.2007 vide para 4 of written version parawise reply again they have stated in the same para that they were not receiving the premium from the complainant since 20.02.2007.So it is difficult to accept the genuineness of o.ps.’ version. When a policy is a unit linked policy, after the termination of the said policy that must have acquired a paid up value which should have informed by the o.ps. to the complainant. It is their own admission that complainant paid premium regularly @ Rs. 3,000/- ( quarterly ) upto 20.02.2007 vide Annexure running page 11. Thereafter complainant and o.ps. both remained silent. Only on 13.02.2012 o.ps. sent one intimation regarding modification of the policy in question. O.p. nos. 2 to 5 being a worldwide renowned insurance company should not have remained silent since 2007 to 2012. Now-a-days we all know that the insurance policy is not merely an insurance policy but an investment policy, too. It is also to be kept in mind that people invest their hard earned money in a renowned organization so that they can utilize the same in their financial crisis. But the organization like the o.ps. are always trying to adopt unfair trade practice whenever they getany chance even like a needle hole. O.p. should have been more careful with regard to sending intimation to the complainant as and when he defaulted in making payment. But o.ps. have neglected to do so for which they have no explanation to put forward in their favour which clearly shows that there occurred gross deficiency in service on their part. It is further to be mentioned that an agent of o.p. nos. 2, 3 & 4. So the plea taken by o.p. nos. 2, 3 & 4 that they did not receive twoinstallments being Rs. 6,000/- in the year 2005 and an amount of Rs. 18,000/- in the year 2007 is not tenable because it is the common practice that insurance premiumis mostly paid through insurance agent. So the agent always acts on behalf of his principal, herein o.p. nos. 2 to 4. And for all non actions of o.p. no. 1, o.p. nos. 2 to 4 vicariously liable because both the receipts dated 10.01.2007 for an amount of Rs. 18,000/- and dated 28.7.2005 for an amount of Rs. 6,000/- submitted by the complainant and both the receipts bear the official logo of o.p. nos. 2 to 4. So we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case, where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed against o.p. nos. 2 to 4 and dismissed against o.p. no. 1.Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 621 of 2014 ( HDF 621 of 2014 ) be allowed on contest with costs against o.p. nos. 2, 3 & 4 and ex parte against o.p. no. 1 without costs.
The O.P. nos. 2 to 4 be directed to refund the total deposited premium amount from 20.08.2004 to 20.02.2007 to the complainant within one month from this order i.d., 9% p.a. interest shall be charged.
The O.P. nos. 2 to 4 are further directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs within one month from this order i.d., 9% p.a. interest shall be charged.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha)
Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
