KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Dated this the 18^th February 2014

PRESENT:HON.JUSTICE.P.Q.BARKATHALI, PRESIDENT

APPEAL NO.305/13

Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual

Life Insurance Ltd, It’s regd office

At Vinay Bhavya Complex,

159-A, CST road, Kalina,                          -        Appellant

Santacruz (East) Mumbai-400 098.

Through it’s authorized signatory-

Ms. Priti Sawant.

(By Adv: Sri.P. Prasad)

                                                               Vs

Subramanian, S/o.Viswanatha Iyer,

Plot No.5, Sanskruti Sabari,                       -        Respondent

Lay Out, P.N.Pudir,

Coimbatore – 641 041

Tamilnadu.

(By Adv: Sri.Ajaykumar)

ORDER

JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q. BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC 187/2012 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad challenging the order of the Forum dated February 27, 2013 directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,85,000/- with a compensation of  Rs.5000/- and a cost of Rs.1000/- .

 The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief  is this:

The complainant has taken a life insurance policy, Kotak Smart Advantage Policy on 31/3/2009.  The life was assured to Ms.Dhwani Dinesh.  The premium amount was Rs.95,000/- yearly.  Complainant paid two premiums totaling to Rs.1,90,000/-.  On 9/6/10 the opposite party issued a statement of account showing that the above said policy is assigned to Ms.Pooja Ajaybhai Desai without consent of the complainant.  Though several e-mail were sent to the opposite parties they never replied.  Complainant believed that it is not safe to continue the policy with the opposite party.  Though he demanded the amount paid, the opposite parties did not repay that amount.  Therefore complainant filed the complaint before the Forum for return of the premium amount of Rs.1,90,000/- and a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

 The 1^st appellant/1^st opposite party is M/s Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd represented by its chief Operating Officer Mumbai.  2^nd opposite party is its Branch Officer at Palakkad.  They in their version admitted the issuance of the policy to the complainant. They submitted that the showing of the Ms.Dhwani Dinesh in the statement of account issued a mistake and that they have corrected the same and that therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. 

Both parties filed their proof affidavits. Ext.A1 to Ext.A7 were marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.B1 to Ext.B3 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that there was deficiency of service on the part of  the opposite parties and directed them to pay an amount of Rs. 1,85,000/- along with a  compensation of Rs.5,000/- and a cost of Rs.1000/-. The opposite parties have come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

Heard both the counsels. 

The following points arising for consideration.

1.     Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of  the opposite parties?

2.     Whether the  impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?      

It is admitted that complainant has taken Ext.A1 policy on 31/3/09 with life assured to Ms.Dhwani Dinesh. It is also not disputed that complainant paid 2 premiums of Rs.95,000/- each and the opposite party issued Ext. A2 statement of account on 9/6/2010 showing that the policy has been assigned to on Ms.Pooja Ajaybhai.

  The case of the complainant that is that he never consented for transferring the policy to Ms.Pooja Ajaybhai and that therefore he wanted to discontinue the policy.  The opposite parties would content that it was only a mistake in Ext.A2 which they are prepared to correct.   It is clear from the above  that there was clear mistake on the part of the opposite party.  Ext.A5 to Ext.A7 are the e-mails sent by the complainant to IRDA and Ext.B3 is the e-mail sent by 1^st opposite party.  But the opposite party did not take any action.  The opposite parties are not in a position to explain for such a grave mistake.  Therefore I am of the view that complainant is perfectly justified in claiming refund of  the amount paid by him.  The finding of the Forum on this point is confirmed.

The Forum found that as per clause 7 of IRDA Regulation 2010 the maximum discontinuance charges for the policies having annual premium above Rs.25,000/- is Rs.5,000/-.  Therefore Forum directed the opposite parties to payRs.1,85,000/- along with the compensation of  Rs.5,000/- and a cost of Rs.1000/- with interest.  I find no ground to interfere with the said finding of the Forum. 

In the result I find no merit in this appeal and the same is here by dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT