Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 471.
Instituted on : 13.09.2019.
Decided on : 24.01.2022
Shiv Om, age 41 years, son of Sh. Bed Ram @ Ved Ram R/o H. No.761/10, Gali No.6, Roop Nagar, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Ltd., Branch at First Floor, Shivalik Apartments, SCF 14, HUDA Complex, Civil Road, Rohtak through its Manager.
- Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Ltd., Registered Office at 14th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. SHYAM LAL, MEMBER.
Present: Shri Naresh Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had taken an Insurance Policy Tata AIA Life Mahalife Gold bearing No.C150391588 with annual payment mode from respondents and first installment of the policy of Rs.19,831/- was paid on 30.9.2013. The installments of the policy were to be paid for 15 years. The complainant continued to deposit the premium on annual basis till 09.02.2017 but thereafter, the financial condition of the complainant became deteriorated and he was not able to pay the installments and continue the policy. As such he approached the office of respondents in October,2017 and requested for surrender the policy and refund of the amount paid by him as per rules, on which the officials of respondents got his signatures on some printed and blank papers and assured him that the money deposited by him will be refunded very soon. But the amount has not been refunded by the respondents despite the facts that complainant is approaching them time and again. Hence, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of respondents. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the amount deposited by the complainant towards policy alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till actual realization and also to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of compensation for mental pain and other financial losses as well as Rs.50,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that the policy in question was purchased in the October, 2013 and the complainant deposited the premium regularly upto September, 2016. Due to non-receipt of the payment in November, 2016, the lapsation notice dated 14.11.2016 was issued to the complainant informing the factum that the policy in question has been lapsed and the policy holder can get the policy revived within a period of 180 days. Later on getting no premium payment renewal, respondents issued a Auto Surrender letter dated 29.11.2016 as per terms and conditions of the policy, wherein the cash value in the account of the complainant was to an amount of Rs.16,902.20/- and the same was used for covering the policy benefit till 25.8.2017 and in the letter it was made crystal clear that the cash value was insufficient to cover the model premium and hence, the cash value of Rs.16,902.20/- has been utilized proportionately by extending life cover till 25.8.2017. In the letter itself, the option was given to the complainant either to reinstate the policy, to avail benefit of continues coverage or surrender of the policy. In reply of the same, the complainant deposited the amount due in September, 2016 in February, 2017 and thus answering respondents issued the policy reinstatement letter dated 09.02.2017 confirming the factum that the policy in question has been reinstate and requested the complainant to deposit the next premium due on 15.10.2017 on time. The complainant rather than depositing the amount did not make the payment due from September, 2017 till date. The respondent served premium payment intimation dated 15.10.2018 intimating the complainant to deposit the amount. On getting no premium amount, respondents served letter dated 15.11.2018 intimating the activation of the Automatic Premium Loan as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Later on a letter dated 15.9.2019 was also served intimating to deposit the premium payment intimation and lastly a letter dated 30.9.2019 was served intimating the factum that the dividend of Rs.7,854/- has been credited in the account and the complainant is in outstanding indebitness of Rs.36695.06/- after adjusting the dividend letter. It is also submitted that the complainant was well within option to surrender the policy after the receipt of letter dated 29.11.2016, but the complainant instead of surrender the policy, opted to reinstate the policy and opted to restore the policy benefit. It is also submitted that the complainant had never approached the office of respondents after reinstatement of the policy in February, 2017. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost qua the opposite party no.1 to 2.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence on dated 14.10.2020. In additional evidence, ld. Counsel for the complainant has tendered document Ex.C4 and closed his additional evidence on dated 20.9.2021. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R11 and closed his evidence on dated 15.2.2021.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case it is not disputed that complainant had availed the policy from the opposite parties in the year 2013 and the mode of payment of premium was annual. As the complainant was not in a position to deposit the premium, so he made request to the respondent company to close the policy on the ground that his financial condition is very poor and he does not want to proceed further. Copy of the same is placed on record by the complainant as Ex.C4 dated 05.102018. In the present complainant the complainant had deposited four instalments of his policy. Firstly on dated 30.09.2013, second instalment on dated 17.10.2014, 3rd instalment on dated 26.10.2015 and fourth instalment was due in the year 2016 but the same was deposited by the complainant belatedly in the month of February 2017. During this period an amount of Rs.170/- was deposited by the complainant on dated 09.02.2017 on account of delayed payment penalty. Meaning thereby complainant has deposited the yearly installments regularly and if any payment has been deposited belatedly in that situation he paid the delayed payment penalty with the insurance company in the year 2017. The complainant has made request to close the policy due to financial condition but the company has not taken any appropriate step to close the policy. The insurance company deducted the credited amount of the policy for the next instalment due towards the complainant. In fact the policy should be closed on the request of the complainant in the year 2018 but same has not been done by the company. There is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The application has been moved on 05.10.2018 and the complaint has filed before this Commission on 13.09.2019. The insurance company as per letter Ex.R9 is demanding the premium amount on 15.11.2018 whereas the request of surrender of policy has already been made on 05.10.2018. Again a letter dated 16.09.2019 was issued for demand of premium amount whereas the complainant has already filed the case on 13.09.2019. As per letter Ex.R11, an amount of dividend payment of Rs.7854/- has also been deducted from the account of complainant and an amount of Rs.36695/- has been shown outstanding towards the complainant. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the opposite parties are liable to pay the amount to the complainant. But neither the complainant nor the opposite party has placed on record any document to prove the value of policy at the time of surrender. Therefore, this Commission has made self assessment and direct the opposite parties to refund the total amount of premium paid by the complainant after deducting the 1/3rd amount of the same. Total amount of premium paid by the complainant as per statement Ex.C2 is Rs.78941/- and by deducting the 1/3rd amount of the same towards expenditure, we hereby allow Rs.50000/- as lump-sum amount payable by the opposite parties.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.50000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the alleged amount from the date of decision till its realization. Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
24.01.2022.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member
..........................................
Shyam Lal, Member
