BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 27/07/2011
Date of Order : 29/05/2011
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 399/2011
Between
T.J. John, | :: | Complainant |
S/o. Geevarghese John, 199 Thayyil 3, Puthuveli. P.O., Monippilli, Koothattukulam – 686 641. |
| (By Adv. P.M. Joshy, Kiran Law Associates, Lissy Junction, Ernakulam, Kochi - 18) |
And
1. Tata AIG Life Insurance Company Ltd., | :: | Opposite Parties |
5th & 6th Floor, Peninsula Towers, Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpatrao kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013, Rep. by its authorized officer. 2. Tata AIG Life Insurance Company Ltd., 2nd Floor, Rai Arcade, M.G. Road, Kochi – 682 035, Rep. by its authorised officer. |
| (Op.pts. 1 & 2 by Adv. T.K. Vipindas, Das & Das Associates, Providence Jn., Old Railway Station, Ernakulam) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. The case of the complainant is as follows :
The complainant is a senior citizen and an ex-service man. Lured by the assurances of the agents of the opposite parties, the complainant joined an insurance policy with effect from 18-06-2008. While joining the policy, the opposite parties assured that there would be one year insurance coverage and the minimum amount to be remitted is Rs. 1 lakh and the amount with accrued bonus would be returned after the said period. Believing the above assurances only, the complainant joined the policy and remitted Rs. 1 lakh. On receipt of the copy of the application and other forms on 29-10-2008, the complainant caused a letter to the opposite parties highlighting his grievances, but there was no response. On 01-01-2009, the complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice to the opposite parties demanding the return of the remitted amount with interest. The opposite parties informed the complainant that the amount would only be returned after the expiry of 3 years. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in joining the complainant to the policy without visibly and reliably disclosing the real facts. So, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay the amount with interest together with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and costs of the proceedings.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows :
The complainant joined the policy after reading and understanding the terms and conditions of the policy. The policy was duly despatched to the complainant at the address provided by him. The terms and conditions were explained to the complainant in detail and only upon his satisfaction he had accepted the policy. The opposite parties intimated the complainant that since his request for cancellation of the policy was received only after the statutory free look period of 15 days, the same was declined. The complainant failed to exercise the statutory and legal right to get the policy cancelled within 15 days from the receipt of the policy documents. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties request to dismiss the complaint.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1, and Exts. A1 to A8 were marked on his side. No oral evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on their side. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The points that emanated for consideration are :-
Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the insurance premium from the opposite parties?
Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?
5. Point No. i. :- Admittedly, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the opposite parties towards insurance premium evidenced by Ext. A1 receipt dated 07-05-2008. According to the complainant, on receipt of the copy of the application form purportedly signed by him and the policy documents, he caused Ext. A2 letter dated 09-10-2008 demanding refund of the money. The opposite parties contend that they have not received Ext. A2. Thereafter on 31-12-2008, the complainant caused to issue Ext. A5 lawyer notice to the opposite party demanding to refund the amount of Rs. 1 lakh. The opposite parties accepted the lawyer notice evident from Ext. A6 acknowledgment card. Again, the complainant caused Ext. A3 and A7 lawyer notices to the opposite parties respectively dated 07-09-2009 and 21-06-2009. It is pertinent to note that the opposite parties did not respond to the above notices for their own reasons, not explained. The above conduct of the opposite parties itself amounts to deficiency in service on their part. No reason is forthcoming on the part of the opposite parties as to the reasons, why they kept mum.
6. The opposite parties took a contention that the complainant had duly gone through the terms and conditions of the policy before he signed Ext. B1 application. On the contrary, the complainant disputed his signature in Ext. B1 application, but nothing is on record to substantiate or disprove the same.
7. We have carefully gone through Ext. B1 copy of the application form and terms and conditions of the policy. The terms and conditions are printed in too fine a print and one cannot read the same with naked eyes. The terms and conditions are meant for those who join the policy to be read and understood. A person who joins the policy without understanding the terms and conditions of the policy is not bound by the same. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court if the terms and conditions are in fine prints the terms and conditions are not binding on the parties. (Modern Industries Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2000 CTJ 169 (SC) (CP) ). The law of the land has not been challenged.
8. In the above circumstances, even if the complainant has received the terms and conditions prior to the inception of the application, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant has joined the policy without knowing the terms and conditions of the same. For reasons stated above, it is settled law that if a person entering into a contract without the full knowledge the contract itself is void ab-initio. The deficiency on the part of the opposite parties has been clearly proved on account of the reasons stated above, for which they are answerable. Relying on the observations above, we have no hesitation in allowing this complaint.
8. Point No. ii. :- The primary grievance of the complainant having been met squarely and adequately the claim for compensation is not called for in the eyes of law, however an exemplary costs of Rs. 1,000/- is awarded for the unnecessary inconveniences the complainant has been put to due to this litigation.
9. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows :
The opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the complainant with interest @ 12% from the date of receipt till realisation.
The opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.
The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of May 2012.
Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | A receipt dt. 07-05-2008 |
“ A2 | :: | Copy of the letter dt. 29-10-2008 |
“ A3 | :: | Lawyer notice dt. 21-06-2011 |
“ A4 | :: | Postal receipts |
“ A5 | :: | Copy of the lawyer notice dt. 31-12-2008 |
“ A6 | :: | An acknowledgment card |
“ A7 | :: | Copy of the lawyer notice dt. 07-09-2009 |
“ A8 | :: | Postal receipts |
Opposite party's Exhibits :-
Exhibit B1 | :: | Copy of application form |
“ B2 | :: | Copy of the Premium reminder notice |
Depositions :- |
|
|
PW1 | :: | T.J. John – complainant |
=========
