Order No. 14  Dt.12.03.2014

            This is an application u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner Manirul Islam, praying for an order directing the O.P. to credit the premium amount of Rs.17913/- paid in December, 2012, and also directing the opposite party to close the second policy, and an order for compensation of Rs.75000/- for mental agony and physical hardships and Rs.10000/- as cost of litigation.

          The case of the petitioner is that he made an insurance policy viz. TATA AIG Life Mahalife Gold for a term of 15 years in the year 2010 bearing No. C065970311 and the O.P.1 is the branch office of O.P.2 Insurance Company. The complainant made the insurance policy in the name of his daughter Marufa Khatun and the premium p.a. was Rs.17913/- and the sum assured was Rs.200000/-. The premium used to be due in the month of February every year. On 12^th December,2012 the petitioner got a call from Customer Care of O.P. Insurance Company and he was informed that if he deposited the due premium forthwith then he would be given Rs.50640/- and two gold coins as gifts since the company changing its name from Tata AIG Life to Tata AIA Life. The petitioner issued cheque drawn on SBI, Laxmipur Branch believing that he had deposited the premium of his insurance policy for the year 2013 but to his surprise he came to know that a new policy No. C202339485 was issued in his favour in Feb, 2013 with maturity date 05.02.2077 and the premium amount remaining the same as his previous policy even though the sum assured was as meager as Rs.192000/-. The petitioner informed the matter to the O.P. in writing stating that he never intended to buy such a policy and the O.P. duped him and such acts of the O.P. amounts to unfair practice and then he filed this case.

          The O.P. 1 and 2 contested the case by filing a single written version wherein they denied the allegations made against them and submitted that the petitioner is not a consumer and his allegations are misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and he filed this case suppressing material facts. The petitioner filled up the proposal form before getting the policy and did not put in correct facts. The petitioner took one policy for his daughter and then another insurance policy on his own life and he never filed any complaint against such policy and this petition being false and fabricated one and is liable to be dismissed.

          On  the above cases of the parties following issues are framed:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form?
2. Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case?
3. Whether the petitioner is a ‘Consumer’ in terms of Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ?
4. Whether the petitioner actually had two policies?
5. Whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps?
6. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
7. To what other reliefs the petitioner is entitled to get?

::DECISION WITH REASONS::

Issue Nos. 1,2,3 4 5 and 6

All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion and to skip of reiteration.

In support of his case the petitioner Manirul Islam deposed before the Forum as P.W.-1 and submitted that he made an insurance policy viz. TATA AIG Life Mahalife Gold for a term of 15 years in the year 2010 bearing No. C065970311 and the O.P.1 is the branch office of O.P.2 Insurance Company. The complainant made the insurance policy in the name of his daughter Marufa Khatun and the premium p.a. was Rs.17913/- and the sum assured was Rs.200000/-. The premium used to be due in the month of February every year. On 12^th December,2012 the petitioner got a call from Customer Care of O.P. Insurance Company and he was informed that if he deposited the due premium forthwith then he would be given Rs.50640/- and two gold coins as gifts since the company changing its name from Tata AIG Life to Tata AIA Life. The petitioner issued cheque drawn on SBI, Laxmipur Branch believing that he had deposited the premium of his insurance policy for the year 2013 but to his surprise he came to know that a new policy No. C202339485 was issued in his favour in Feb, 2013 with maturity date 05.02.2077 and the premium amount remaining the same as his previous policy even though the sum assured was as meager as Rs.192000/-. The petitioner informed the matter to the O.P. in writing stating that he never intended to buy such a policy and the O.P. duped him and such acts of the O.P. amounts to unfair practice and then he filed this case. Besides he also filed documents being the policy document and four others which are marked as Exts. 1,2,3,4 and 5. The O.P. did not adduce any evidence.

This Forum heard the Ld. Counsel for the O.P. as well as the petitioner.  While the Counsel for the O.P. submitted that the petitioner is not a consumer and his allegations are misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and he filed this case suppressing material facts. The petitioner filled up the proposal form before getting the policy and did not put in correct facts. The petitioner took one policy for his daughter and then another insurance policy on his own life and he never filed any complaint against such policy and this petition being false and fabricated one and is liable to be dismissed. However, he submitted that his company has no objection in closing the second policy of the petitioner and adjusting the premium amount of the same against the premium amount of the first policy.         Then the Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he prayed before the Forum directing the O.P. Insurance Company to credit the premium paid by him in December, 2012 into the account of his first policy and also direction on the O.Ps to close the second policy and when the O.Ps conceded to the first two prayers then he has no objection if the other reliefs are not considered.

This Forum kept in mind the submissions of the ld. Counsels of both sides and also the contents of the cases of the parties and the oral as well as documentary evidences adduced and produced by the parties and finds that in the instant case there was allegation against the O.Ps that the O.Ps duped the petitioner by opening a second policy in his favour receiving the premium amount of the first policy and he prayed for adjustment of the said premium amount of Rs.17913/- against the premium of the year 2013 and he would pay the premium amount for the year 2014 as usual and in the instant case the O.Ps conceding the case of petitioner that they would close the second policy and the premium amount deposited in the second would be adjusted with the premium amount of the first policy for the year 2013. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he would deposit the premium of 2014 before the end of March, 2014.

In view of above discussions and findings this Forum finds that the case be disposed of with direction on the O.P. to close the second policy and adjustment of the premium amount of the second policy with that of the first policy

     In the result, the claim case succeeds in part.

Court fee, paid is correct.

          Hence,                                     ordered

that Malda D.F. Case No. 61 of 2013 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest in part against the O.P. without cost considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

The petitioner Manirul Islam would get the first two reliefs satisfied i.e. the second policy be closed and the premium amount deposited with that policy be adjusted with the premium of first policy for the year 2013 and the petitioner is to deposit the premium for the year 2014 before the close of March, 2014 and the O.Ps are directed to accept the said premium and regularize the said policy.  The order be complied within the time frame mentioned failing the petitioner would be at liberty to put the order in execution.

Let a copy of this order be given to each of the parties free of cost.