JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by complainant Smt. Shabana Anjum against the opposite No. 1 & 2 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposites to refund the premium amount of Rs. 41,041/- with compensation amount of Rs. 20,000/- and interest with cost. 2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, she subscribed Insurance policy by name Maha Life Gold vide policy No. C 310018096 dt. 23-10-06 from opposite No-1. She paid annual premium amount of Rs. 26,821/- vide cheque No. 337131, the said amount was encashed by opposite No-1 vide receipt dt. 02-11-06. Thereafter she requested the opposite No-1 to change the mode of payment of premium of the said policy from annual frequency to monthly frequency and accordingly opposite No-1 collected an amount of Rs. 2,370/- vide cheque dt. 29-10-07 as a premium for the month of October-07. Likewise she paid monthly premium to opposite No-1 in respect of the said policy on 27-11-07, 25-12-07, 23-01-08, 20-02-08 through cheques and opposite No-1 got encashed the said cheques, thereafter opposite No-1 stated issuing reminder notices to pay the premium amount of the policy as the said policy lapsed on 27-12-07, it also issued notice to the complainant requesting to submit request change letter duly signed by her, accordingly it was sent with monthly premium cheque, in spite of it also, it started sending notices by saying that premium amount not paid, policy lapsed. She made her good efforts to convince opposite No-1, but opposite No-1 not ready to hear her request. Hence this complaint is filed for deficiency in service by opposites No-1 for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint. 3. The opposite Nos. 1 & 2 appeared in this case through their Advocate, filed their written version by admitting the policy subscribed by the complainant on annually premium payable and thereafter it also admitted the receipt of amount of Rs. 2,370/- per month from October-07 to February-08 but it not received any request for change of annual premium to monthly premium. Hence her policy became lapsed, it sent back Rs. 11,850/- to the complainant, but it was returned due to change of her address. Hence there was no deficiency in its service and accordingly they prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, she subscribed Maha Life Insurance Policy dt. 23-10-06 from opposite No-1 by paying an amount of Rs. 26,821/-, thereafter she requested to opposite No-1 to change the mode of payment of annual frequency to monthly frequency and paid monthly premiums from October-07 to February-08 by filing change Form and ECS as prayed for, but opposites negligently started issuing reminders to her as policy lapsed due to non payment of premiums and thereby both opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services towards her.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the affirmative (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as noted in the final order. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 :- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, she was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-16 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of operating in-charge officer of the opposites was filed, he was noted as RW-1. The documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-8 are marked. 7. On going through the pleadings of the parties, their respective affidavit-evidences and documents, we have noticed some of the following facts are undisputed facts in between the parties are:- 1. It is undisputed fact that, the complainant subscribed Maha Life Gold policy bearing No. C310018096 dt. 23-10-06 annually payable premium from opposite No-1 Insurance Company. 2. It is further undisputed fact that, initially complainant paid annual premium amount of Rs. 26,821/- through cheque to opposite No-1 and thereafter opposite No-1 issued receipt dt. 02-11-06 for the receipt of said amount. 3. Complainant thereafter paid an amount of Rs. 2,370/- vide cheque No. 851585 dt. 29-10-07 in the month of October-07 it was encashed by opposite No-1, thereafter she paid similar amount monthly premiums to opposite No-1 through cheques on 27-11-07, 25-12-07, 23-01-08 and on 20-02-08 opposite No-1 encashed all those cheques as and when he received them. 8. Now we have to appreciate the claim of complainant on the background of these admitted facts, the claim of complainant is that, she requested opposite No-1 to change the mode of payment of premium from annual to monthly premium, accordingly she paid monthly premiums to opposite No-1 as stated above. As regards to receipt of the amount by opposite No-1 is not in dispute. So the relevant documents of the parties, with regard to the facts admitted are not referred by us for to discuss them in detail. 9. The contention of opposites to reject the claim of complainant is that, the payment of premium of the said policy was annual premium, but without giving notice to them, complainant sent those cheques to convert it into monthly premium from annual premium. It was brought to the notice of complainant vide letter dt. 27-12-07 with a direction to complainant to file request for change, she not filed such request, hence her policy became lapsed. 10. In order to find out the real facts, we have taken into consideration of the admitted facts by opposites that, the complainant initially paid Rs. 26,821/- vide receipt issued by it on 02-11-06 thereafter complainant paid Rs. 2,370/- vide cheque No. 851585 dt. 29-10-07 in the month of 2007. 11. Thereafter complainant paid monthly premiums to opposite No-1 in respect of the said policy from October-07 to February-08. Ex.P-1 written by opposites to complainant and the facts pleaded by opposite as stated in Para-5 in written version are very much clear that, opposite No-1 cannot say that, the policy subscribed by the complainant is lapsed due to non payment of annual premium because of the fact that, it received so many cheques sent by the complainant and encashed it within in one year, if it was so, the case of complainant that, she got change the mode of payment by filing form as contended in her complaint and in her affidavit-evidence cannot be ruled out. The efforts made by opposite No-1 is only a mechanical effort to say that, the premium amount not paid towards the policy and it became lapsed even though it received number of cheques from the complainant towards that policy and then it why it not verified while issuing reminder notices Ex.P-7 to Ex.P-10, reasons assigned for its lapses as such are not acceptable reasons to say that, the policy subscribed by the complainant was lapsed and she is entitled only to get total amount of Rs. 11,850/-. 12. In the instant case, it appears to us that, the complainant frustrated due to correspondences made by her with opposite No-1 for receiving premium lapsed notices vide Ex.P-7 to Ex.P-10. In the said circumstances, she requested us to direct the opposites to pay total amount of Rs. 41,014/- paid by her. We agree with the submissions made by the learned advocate for complainant with regard to harassment caused to the complainant from opposite No-1 by issuing notices Ex.P-7 to Ex.P-10, even though she paid regular premium amount in one year wants to recind from the contract and prayed for to return the total amount of Rs. 41,041/-. Opposites cannot say that policy lapsed and complainant not entitled to get policy premium amount. Hence it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service by opposites. Accordingly we answered Point No-1 in affirmative. 13. As regard to Point No-2 is concerned, in the light of the claim of the complainant, we noticed the fact that, opposite No-1 has no objection to refund of Rs. 11,850/- to the complainant. Premium paid by complainant through cheque at one time for Rs. 26,821/-, thereafter again she made payment of Rs. 2,370/- opposite No-1 not denied, as such complainant entitled for to get total premium amount of Rs. 41,041/- paid by her from opposites. 14. As regards to other prayer of her to grant a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- is not considered, as interest on the amount of Rs. 41,041/- at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount is awarded. 15. Complainant is entitled to recover a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of this complaint from the opposites, accordingly we answered Point No-2. POINT NO.3:- 16. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover a total amount of Rs. 41,041/- from opposites jointly and severally. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the above total sum of Rs. 41,041/- from the date of the complaint till realization of the full amount. Complainant is entitled to recover lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of this litigation. Opposites are granted one month time to comply the above order from the date of this judgment. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 08-07-10)