DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Thursday, the 29th day of August 2024
CC. 254/2023
Complainant
Venugopal,
S/o Raman Kutty Nair,
Tharavattath, Mayanad,
Kozhikode – 673 008.
Opposite Parties
- TATA AIA Insurance Co. Ltd, 2nd floor, 7/117,
Technotop Building,
Vaikkum Muhammed Basheer road,
Calicut – 673 001.
OP1 address corrected as
TATA AIA Insurance Co. Ltd,
RKP/3/391, B5 1st floor,
Kay Pees Plaza, Bear By-pass JN,
Opp. Syndicate Bank, Airport road,
Ramanatukara, Kozhikode -673 633.
- Bluechip Insurance Broking Private Ltd,
RKP/3/391, B5 1st floor,
Kay Pees Plaza, Bear By-pass JN,
Airport road, Ramanatukara,
Opp. Syndicate Bank,
Kozhikode – 673 633.
- Saranya (Agent),
Bluechip Insurance Broking Private Ltd,
RKP/3/391, B5 1st floor,
Kay Pees Plaza, Bear By-pass JN,
Airport road, Ramanatukara,
Opp. Syndicate Bank,
Kozhikode – 673 633.
Supply. OP4. Shebin,
RKP/3/391, B5 1st floor,
Kay Pees Plaza, Bear By-pass JN,
Airport road, Ramanatukara,
Opp. Syndicate Bank,
Kozhikode – 673 633.
(Suppl. OP4 impleaded as per IA 62/2024 dated 14/05/2024)
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The complainant has taken a Tata AIA Fortune Guarantee Pension Scheme insurance policy from the first opposite party as per the words of the third opposite party. The complainant was informed by the opposite parties that he had to pay a premium of Rs. 10,000/- per month for one year and after the completion of the above said period, he would get an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month as pension from the first opposite party for his life time.
- After paying the premium amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month for one year the complainant approached the first opposite party and produced the documents for getting monthly pension. But the company came out with new conditions and denied the pension. The new condition was that the complainant had to pay premium for 3 years consecutively in order to avail such a pension scheme. This was not informed to the complainant earlier. The opposite parties had fraudulently misled the complainant and made him join the scheme. There is deficiency of rendering services on the part of the opposite parties, as a result of which, the complainant has suffered mental agony and loss. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party to give back the entire money paid by him as premium with interest @ 12% per annum and to pay compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part along with cost of the proceedings.
- The supplemental fourth opposite party was impleaded as per order dated 14/05/2024 in IA. No. 62/2024.
- All the opposite parties were set ex-parte.
- The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
- Whether there was any unfair trade and business practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
- Reliefs and costs.
- The complainant filed affidavit.
- Point No 1: The complainant is alleging unfair trade and business practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is the holder of Tata AIA Life Insurance Fortune Guarantee Pension Insurance Policy of the first opposite party. The grievance of the complainant is that even though he had paid the premium amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month for one year, he was denied the benefit of the scheme and new conditions were imposed for getting the benefit of monthly pension and thereby there was unfair trade and business practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
- The complainant has filed proof affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Along with the affidavit, the policy with terms and conditions and the copy of the documents of the insurance claim were produced.
- The case of the complainant is that after payment of premium of Rs. 10,000/- per month for one year, he is eligible to get Rs. 3,000/- per month as pension from the first opposite party. But nothing is produced by the complainant to show that he is entitled to the said benefit on remittance of premium of Rs. 10,000/-per month for one year. The policy produced along with the affidavit shows that the date of inception/commencement of the policy is 25/02/2022. The premium payment term is 5 years. The frequency of premium payment is monthly. The total premium including taxes is Rs. 10,000/-. The date of first annuity payment is 25/02/2028. The proposal form signed by the complainant also shows that the date of first annuity payment is 25/02/2028 and the premium payment term is 5 years.
- The complainant has no case that he was not provided with the policy with terms and conditions. Equally, he has no case that the proposal form was not filled up, read or singed by him. The complainant is a pensioner. He is not illiterate. There is nothing to indicate that there was any misrepresentation or suppression of material facts from the part of the opposite party at the time of joining the scheme. That being the position, no unfair trade or business practice or deficiency of service can be attributed against the opposite parties.
- It is true that the opposite parties have not turned up to file version and to contest the case. But the mere fact that the opposite parties have opted to remain ex-parte does not automatically entitles the complainant to get an order as prayed for. It is for the complainant to prove his case by adducing satisfactory evidence. But the complainant herein failed to show that he is entitled to get monthly pension of Rs. 3,000/- on remittance of premium of Rs. 10,000/- per month for one year, as claimed by him. On the other hand, the documents produced by none other than the complainant go against his own case. Equally, there is total absence of evidence as to any misrepresentation or suppression of material facts on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged.
- To sum up, we find that there is no proof of any unfair trade and business practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and consequently the complaint must fail.
- Point No. 2: In view of the findings on the above point, the complainant is not entitled to claim and get any relief.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. However, no order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 29th day of August, 2024.
Date of Filing: 26/06/2023
Sd/ Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX
NIL
Sd/ Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
True Copy,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
