DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Devi Parmila w/o Vijay Narain Chaudhary, R/o #2809, Ward No.12, Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1]  TATA AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Branch Manager, SCO No. 107-108, 2^nd Floor, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh.

2]  The Branch Manager, TATA AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No. 151-152, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

3]  TATA AIG Life Insurance Company Ltd., through its Manager, Policy Owner Services, Corporate and Regd. Office at Delphi-B Wing, 2^nd Floor, Orchard Avenue, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400076.

4]  Bajaj Capital Insurance Broking through its Manager, SCO No. 341-342, 1^st Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

                      ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                 PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL       MEMBER

         DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Gagan Inder Singh, Counsel for complainant.

           None for OPs No.1 to 3.

Sh.Kamal Kishore, Authorized Representative of OP No.4.

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

         Concisely put, on 26.12.2007, OP No.4 approached the Complainant through his representative for explaining the benefits of taking life insurance. It was explained to her that she is required to pay six installments of Rs.25,000/- as a premium after every six months for three years to the OP No.1 Company for getting the benefit of premium holiday. It was also told to her that she will get regular income and returns after the payment of six installments and in alternative, she can claim refund of the money paid at any time after three years. Accordingly, she took the life insurance policy and made six payments of Rs.25,000/- each totaling Rs.1.5 lakhs. When after making these payments, she approached the OP No.1 in Jan.2011 for enquiring about the benefits and returns, which were payable to her by the Company, to her utter shock, she was told that her policy has been terminated in view of surrender request given by her; whereas no such request was ever given by her. Further, a cheque of Rs.38,300/- towards the surrender value was sent to her. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant failed to elicit any fruitful results, she got served a legal notice dated 30.03.2011 upon to the OPs, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case.

3.         OP Nos.1 to 3 in their joint written statement, pleaded that the Complainant took ‘Invest Assure Gold Policy’ for which premium of Rs.25,000/- were to be made on a semi-annual basis. The said policy was unit linked and was subject to market risks. As per the policy, the Complainant would be entitled to the Premium Holiday after the payment of six semi-annual premiums of Rs.25,000/- each, in case there is a delay in payment of the next premium, then the Policy shall remain in force subject to deductions. It was submitted that the last premium of Rs.25,000/- was paid by the Complainant on 3.8.2010 and no further premiums were paid thereafter. As such, the policy was cancelled on account of non-payment of premiums and surrender value for an amount of Rs.38,300.95/- was sent to the insured towards full & final settlement of all claims and demands under the policy. It was further pleaded that the Complainant had the benefit of 15 days of free look-in period within which she could have repudiated the policy, which was not done by her. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.         OP No.4 in its reply pleaded that the relief claimed by the Complainant is neither claimable nor maintainable against the replying OP, as refund of premium amount is an issue related to an insurance policy which was infact issued by the Insurance Company to the Complainant. Moreover, being an Insurance Broker the replying OP neither has any authority nor have any obligation to accept/ refund premium amount to the Complainant, as the same is prerogative of the Insurance Company only. It was submitted that as a Broker, the role and responsibility of replying OP was strictly confined and limited to the extent of forwarding/ transmitting insurance application form along with premium amount (account payee cheque) within the reasonable time to the Insurance Company. The role of replying OP gets over as soon as the Complainant duly received insurance policy certificate from the Insurance Company. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

5.         Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6.         We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and ld.Counsel for OP No.4 and have also perused the record.

7.       It is the admitted case of the parties that the complainant had paid six installments of Rs.25,000/- each as premium towards the policy in question and thereby paid a total sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to OPs till 10.8.2010.  When the complainant enquired from the OPs about the benefits and return of his policy in January, 2011, she came to know that her policy has been terminated by the OPs as the complainant had given a request for surrender of the policy.  However, the complainant had never given any such request nor had ever moved any application in this regard to the OPs, while the OPs had sent her a cheque of Rs.38,300/- as surrender value of her policy. 

8.       It is also alleged by the complainant that she did not understand English and she had not filled-in any proposal form.  She also did not sign any proposal form.  The OPs had suo-motto, at their own, cancelled/surrender the policy of the complainant and sent a cheque of Rs.38,300/- to the complainant as surrender value of the policy.

9.       As the complainant is not a signatory to the Proposal Form (Annexure P-1 at Page-9) nor the terms & conditions of the policy was ever explained to her by OP No.4, thus the act of OPs clearly amounts to their indulgence into unfair trade practice. 

10.      Besides this, the OPs have also not placed on record the copy of the request letter, as alleged by them, moved by the complainant for surrender of her policy. Therefore, the act of OPs in cancelling/surrendering the policy at their own, suo-motto, tantamounts to deficiency in service on their part.

11.      In view of the above findings, we are of the opinion that the OPs No.1 to 3 are deficient in rendering proper service as well as indulged in unfair trade practice.  We therefore allow this complaint against OPs No.1 to 3 and direct them to refund the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant. The OPs No.1 to 3 are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.35,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.

12.      However, the complaint qua OP-4 stands dismissed as no deficiency is made out against it.

13.      This order be complied with by the OPs No.1 to 3, within one month, from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they would be liable to pay the awarded amount, alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 15.6.2011 till the amount is actually paid to the complainant, besides paying the litigation cost of  Rs.5,000/-. 

13.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.