BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.68/2009 Order dated this the 31st day of July 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Kum.Greeshma K.S. D/o K.Siddaramanagowda, Rep. her next friend-Father, Guardian K.Siddaramanagowda, R/at N.S.L. Sugars Ltd., (Formerly S.C.M. Sugars Ltd.,) Quarters, Koppa Village and Hobli, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District. (By Sri.B.Ramakrishne Gowda., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S 1. The Managing Director, Tata AIG Life Insurance Company, Delphi-B Wing, 2nd Floor, Arcade Avenue, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai 400 076. 2. The Senior Manager, Customer Services, Tata AIG Life Insurance Company, Delphi-B Wing, 2nd Floor, Arcade Avenue, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai 400 076. 3. Sri.K.Sheshachari, Working as Agent, Tata AIG Life Insurance Company, Kalleswara Krupa, 1st Main, 4th Cross, Nituvalli New Extension, Davanagere 04. (EXPARTE) Date of complaint 03.06.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite parties 25.06.2009 Date of order 31.07.2009 Total Period 1 Month 6 Days Result The complaint is allowed exparte, directing the 1st & 2nd Opposite parties to refund Rs.25,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation to the complainant with cost of Rs.500/-. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite parties to direct the Opposite parties to refund Rs.25,000/- with interest and costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that the Complainant is a minor girl through her father guardian had obtained a LIC policy No.U310184564 for a period of 5 years for assured sum of Rs.2,50,000/- with a condition to pay semi annual premium of Rs.50,000/- for 5 years. The 3rd Opposite party who is the agent of 1st Opposite party while marketing the above policy stated that the policy term is only 5 years with a maximum premium paying term of 5 years and the amount deposited after 5 years will become payable double on the sum assured and it will be paid after 5 years. Contrary to the assurance given particulars are recorded in the proposal form by 3rd Opposite party representing the 1st Opposite party instead of the head step 4 insurance applied for, which is mentioned that the amount of insurance is Rs.2,50,000/- with a policy terms of 5 years and the premium paying term is 5 years, which was justified by the agent at the time of affixing the signature to the said proposal on 04.01.2008. Accordingly, first premium amount of Rs.25,000/- has been paid through cheque dated 04.01.2008 drawn on State Bank of India, Shivapura Branch, Maddur, Mandya District, in favour of the 1st Opposite party. Unfortunately, the 3rd Opposite party has also obtained the signature of the father of the Complainant to the blank form namely Application Form, General amendment form. Later, the father of the Complainant has received the said amendment form along with policy Bond in the last week of March 2008. Along with other Xerox forms and due to his personal inconvenience believing that the said bond and other documents are in accordance with the assurance given by 3rd Opposite party, he had not gone through the contents of the said documents. Only in the 3rd week of April 2009, when the father of the Complainant has read over the contents of the policy bond and Xerox copies of application form and general amendment form to his surprise he noticed that the policy bond, application form and general amendment form contents are erroneous, which revealed that the sum assured is shown as Rs.13,75,000/- and policy term opted for 85 years, which is contrary to the understanding agreed upon. Then noticing the same, the father of the Complainant wrote a letter to 1st Opposite party on 25.04.2009 seeking amendment of policy term for 5 years and rectify the mistake in the policy bond and requesting them to refund the premium amount paid. The 1st Opposite party has written a letter dated 05.05.2009 that they are taking action and necessary investigation would be taken. But, the Opposite party without taking action, has failed to refund the premium amount. The dealings of Opposite parties amount to cheating of trust and confidence. The Opposite party has caused financial loss and also mental torture to the Complainants father. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.25,000/- deposited toward premium. 3. The Complainant was admitted and notices were sent to the Opposite parties and though notices were served, Opposite parties have remained exparte. Thereafter, the Complainants father has filed affidavit and produced the documents Ex.C.1 to C.12. 4. We have heard counsel for the Complainant and perused the records. 5. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the Complainant opted for insurance for a term of 5 years with half yearly premium of Rs.25,000/- or for 85 years? 2. Whether the Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service by issuing policy for 85 years? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to refund of the premium amount paid with interest? 6. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 7. The Complainant is a minor girl and represented by her father guardian and he has filed affidavit. The oral evidence through her father is that he has obtained a life insurance to his daughter as per policy no.U310184564 for a period of 5 years for a assured sum of Rs.2,50,000/- for a period of 5 years with a condition to pay semi annual premium of Rs.25,000/- for 5 years and at the time of taking policy, 3rd Opposite party who is the agent of 1st Opposite party while marketing the policy stated that the policy terms is only 5 years and after 5 years the amount deposited would become double the sum assured and it will be paid after 5 years. According to this assurance and particulars recorded in the proposal form by the 3rd Opposite party agent of 1st Opposite party under the head step 4 insurance applied for and for the policy he had issued a cheque of Rs.25,000/- on 04.01.2008, but the 3rd Opposite party has also obtained the signature to the blank form namely application form, general amendment form and other forms. Later he received the policy bond with amended form from 1st Opposite party in the last week of March 2008, due to his personal inconvenience he had not gone through the contents of the said documents believing that the said bond and other documents are in accordance with the assurance given by 3rd Opposite party, but in 3rd week of April 2009, when he read over all the documents, it was to his surprise to see that they were containing erroneous contents stating that the sum assured is Rs.13,75,000/- and the policy term opted for 85 years, which is contrary to the understanding agreed between him and the 3rd Opposite party and according to him, noticing the same he wrote a letter to 1st Opposite party on 25.04.2009, stating the mistakes in the policy bond and to rectify the same and 1st Opposite party sent a letter stating they are considering the application and assured to take appropriate action, but did not rectify the mistake. The Opposite party have failed to refund the premium amount. The document proves that the Complainant has paid Rs.25,000/- towards the premium and the 2nd Opposite party has issued receipt on 20.03.2008 as per Ex.C.2. The age of the Complainant is 15 years and the number of years in which premiums are payable shown as 5 years and the last premium due date is 11.09.2012, but the policy term is shown as 85 years and the schedule of benefit is shown as Rs.13,75,000/-. The complainant has produced the Xerox copy of the general amendment form Ex.C.7 and C.8. It clearly reveals that only signature was obtained and later they were filled up, because a date was written by the agent and later on 04.01.2008 when the application was submitted is written, because in Ex.C.9 the complainant had put signature on 18.02.2008. Wherein he has stated as please read step 3A. As per Ex.C.9 the amendment form is in respect of policy no.U008048255, but the policy number of the present case is also mentioned by the agent. So, it is not unusual that asking some information, the agent will fill up some matters and obtain the signature of the proposal at the end, later the agent would fill up other things in the proposal form and only when the copy sent, the insurer comes to know what is the actual amount insured and term etc. 8. The Opposite parties have failed to appear and contest the complaint in spite of service of notice, they have not at all disputed the allegations made against the agent 3rd Opposite party and 1st Opposite party. Under Ex.C.11 dated 04.01.2008, the complainant has sought for refund of the premium amount alleging that agent has misguided saying that the policy term is only 5 years and on completion of 5 years double the premium amount paid would be repaid, but only after receiving the policy came to know that the policy term is mentioned as 85 years. 9. It is known fact that the average life of Indian is 60 to 65 years. It cannot be accepted that the father would take insurance for the daughter of 15 years up to the age of 85 years. Naturally, the father would not be alive for this period and even the insured is not definite about her life for 85 years. 1st Opposite party has issued reply Ex.C.12 dated 05.05.2009 stating that in case of any discrepancy in the documents and the plan offered, the same should be brought to the notice within 15 days of receipt of the policy and therefore, they have expressed regret to cancel the policy. But, the Opposite parties have not proved and justified the ground to refuse the premium paid by the complainant, when the Complainant has sought for cancellation of the policy issued by misguiding and giving false assurance. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Complainant father who is a Officer in Sugar Factory and we hold that by misrepresentation and false assurance, stating that the policy terms is only 5 years and the double amount of the premiums paid at the rate of Rs.25,000/- half yearly would be paid. The policy has been issued for a term of 85 years which is unheard of in the insurance field. Therefore, the Complainant has proved the deficiency in service by the Opposite parties and the complainant is entitled to refund of the insurance premium amount of Rs.25,000/- paid by the Complainant with interest. 10. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is allowed exparte, directing the 1st & 2nd Opposite parties to refund Rs.25,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation to the Complainant with cost of Rs.500/-. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 31st day of July 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
