Orissa

Rayagada

CC/316/2016

Mr. Kalam Mohan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Satya Shyam Murty - Opp.Party(s)

Self

03 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 316/ 2016.                                        Date.    03   .     03   . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                          President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                        Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                   Member

Mr.  Kalam Mohan Babu,  S/O: K.Shankar Rao, Kasturinagar, Ist. Lane, Po:Rayagada,     Dist.Rayagada, State:  Odisha.765 001.                                           …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.Sri Satya Shyam Murthy, Agent, Birla Sun life Insurance company Ltd,, Po/ Dist:Rayagada.

2.The Manager, Birla Sun life Insurance company Ltd., Mumbai- 400 013.                                                                                             .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Sri D.Ravi Prasad, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the  O.Ps.:- Sri J.K.Mohapatra, Advocate, Rayagada.

                                               

                                                J u d g e m e n t.

         

          The  present dispute arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non refund of deposited amount a sum  of  Rs.1,30,000/- with admisable interest.

                The learned counsel for the O.Ps  Sri J.K.Mohapatra, Advocate, Rayagada  appeared before the forum  and  filed written version   refuting the allegations of the complainant and made arguments touching the points both on facts as well as law.

                Further the learned counsel for the  O.P. No.2  submitted a   cheque No.967834 Dt. 8.12.2017 a sum of Rs. 1.30,000/-  on behalf of the   O.P No.2   before the forum  towards cancellation  of ABSLI vision life income plan vide  policy No. 006418709 as against the allegation  by the complainant  for full and final settlement in favour   of the above named complainant  that has been  handed over   to the complainant through this forum.

                The complainant in person is present before the forum and  received  the  cheque vide  No.967834 Dt. 8.12.2017 a sum of Rs. 1.30,000/-  from the  forum after maintaining  due formalities  on production of   I.D. proof  and submitted   a memo to withdraw the case since he has already received the  claimed outstanding amount from the O.P No.2   a sum of  Rs. 1,30,000/- vide cheque No. 967834 Dt. 8.12.2017 and he has no more claim against the O.P No.2  in connection with the aforesaid case.

            The O.P. No.2  (Insurance company)  considering the exigencies   of  the matter with out any basis   in the right time properly settled the disputes  at his end to avoid further litigation by  over looking  all the terms and conditions of the policy without contesting the present case  in the sense of humanitarian point of view  by following  the principles of  natural  justice the  Modos  Operandi  of the O.Ps   no doubt  worthy of credence. But  in the  mean while answering   the issue  against the O.P. No.1   it is  apparent from the  record that the O.P. No.1 (agent) is not properly  not  discharged his duty and suppress the facts   and not disclosing  the terms and conditions of his  policy to the  complainant  prior to sign the proposal form  for which the complainant   lured  by the  mischiefs of his agent  signed  the proposal form to get wind full profit of his  scanty  investment with  out  any   knowledge for which such  type  of disputes  arose  to avoid such  further legal complicies forum  directed to the principle employee of  O.P. No.1  to guide the agents to    accept proposals   from the parties    after   convincing  the  hard reality of the plan policy proposed to the  illiterate public  and talk  open discussion clearly  about  the terms and conditions of  the plan offers to  him with a    microscopic   scan  of his affordable capacity.

            Regarding allegation against the O.P. No.1 the forum feels  to note of the following  ‘2’ rullings  2010(II) OLR SC 86 para-II when an agent has without authority  done acts an incurred  obligation to third persons on behalf of his  principal   the “Principal”  is bound  by such acts or  obligations”.   2011(II)  thus it was made clear that suit does   not lie against  an agent where the principal is known or has been disclosed.

            That  from the above rulings it can  be   irristably  concluded    that  when the complainant himself has admitted  that the O.P No.1  is agent of the O.P.  No.2.  This  proceeding against   O.P.  No. 1  has  no legal basis to stand and liable to be dropped.

            Hence we feel    it  suffice  to suggest the O.P. No.2 to guide the agent  not to  run before the commission  but to  follows the professional ethics and accept premium after verifying  the present    health  and Financial  condition  as well   as the   affordable  capacity of the insurer for its successful  complication  of the tenure of the   accepted policy   because  the contract of insurance is based on rocky foundation of   utmost  good faith i.e. principle of Uberrimae fide.   The policy  is a  legal contract   between assured  and  insurer  and they both are bound  by its terms and conditions  under the contract of insurance. The assured  is   under solemn  obligation to disclose  all the material facts to the insurer at the  time of taking   proposal  failing which  the policy is rendered void  illegal and  unenforceable.  

            Consequently  the forum suggested to the O.Ps    to keep up  hold the good names and reputation of the company  as a whole try to  take necessary steps to    warn the agent  to procure the  proposal forms  with proper verification  from the insurer  while accepting the first  premium if ignored  take initiation to   deactivate   his agent code of the concerned  agent  & pressure him to resist and desist from such illegal  practices.

                We perused the memo  filed by the complainant  and the memo is allowed.

                Accordingly the present dispute mitigated  and the  case stands disposed off but O.Ps wriggled out of  liabilities & the  case closed against  them    as  the  complainant   do not want to  proceed  with  the case further against the O.Ps  after receiving the cheque  from the O.P. No.2. Parties are left  to bear their own cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this      3^rd.   Day of       March,   2018.

               

                 

                Member.                                                             Member.                                      President