FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

Smt. SAHANA AHMED BASU

The case of the complainant in a capsulated form is that the complainant purchased three Child Plan policies from the OPsin the year 2013 and paid premiums since 2013 – 2015. In the year 2015 the complainant succeeded to collect Policy documents and ongoing through the documents it is found that the said policy is for corporates. Thereafter the complainant did not paid any premium and tried to cancel the policy for which the complainant had approached the LD. Ombudsman for his relief but settlement could not be reached. Then the complainant put forward his grievances before the Grahak Suvidha Kendra in Salt Lake but after few years the said Grahak suvidha Kendra became unfunctional. Thereafter the complainant approached the Consumer Affairs Department and a complaint was filed being no. 55/CAD-Ins/18-19. Several notices were sent to OPs for appearing before CAD but the OPs remained unattended. Thus the CAD advised the complainant to file a complaint case before DCDRC unit II , Kolkata  and as such this instant case is filed before this Ld. Commission.

Alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint petition seeking refund of premium  amount paid by the complainant including interest , compensation and litigation cost.

OP did not resist the consumer complaint despite service of notice. No WV is filed by the OPwithin statutory period. Thus, the case runs ex parte hearing against the OP.

In support of his case the complainant has tendered evidence supported by an affidavit and also relied documents annexed with the complaint petition. Complainant has also filed written argument. We have heard argument on merit and have also perused the record.

Admittedly the complainant is a policy holder under Child Plan policy of the OPs being No. 51141809, 51145717, 51145755 and paid an amount of Rs.10,40.283/- as premiums since 2013 to 2015 . After realizing that the policies are not suitable for him the complainant decided to cancel those policies and contacted the OPs in this regard. Photocopies of the letter issued by the OP4 4 dated 16.09.2015 , 24.09.2015 and 09.01.2016 furnished by the complainant goes to show that OP4 had assured the complainant that “your concern has been reviewed and appropriate action shall be taken against the erring parties , based on the relevant investigations”and advised the complainant that “In the event of discontent with the resolution of your grievance , you may write to the Local Insurance Ombudsmanfor redressal (visit  As per the said advice the complainant had approached the Ld. Ombudsman seeking relief but failed to reach any settlement . Then the complainant lodged a complaint against OP1 before SEBI on 19.02.2019 and requested them to help him to cancel the policies and to recover his investment of Rs.10,50,000/-. Photocopy of the said complaint letters is annexed with the complaint petition by the complainant. It is also noticed that the complainant tried to resolve the dispute with the assistance of Consumer affairs department and his grievance registered as Complaint Index No. – 55/CAD-Ins/18-19 at Central Consumer Grievance Redressal Cell, Government of West Bengal  and the said Authority arranged tripartite meeting twice on 26.04.2019 and 24.05.2019 . But the OPs remained unturned. Therefore the CAD issued an order stating that:

“This office tries to resolve consumer complaints through  the process of mediation at the ambit of amicable settlement . Accordingly tripartite meetings have been arranged at this end indifferent dates as referred to above. The opposite party remained absent on both meetings, no written version has also ben submitted from their end . It seems that they are reluctant to resolve the issue at the pre-litigation level. Hence the instant complaint issue stands closed from this end as dropped.”

In view of the above it appears that OPs are miserably failed to perform their liabilities and responsibilities.

It is true that that no WV has been filed by the OP though several opportunities were given to them for filing WV yet they have failed to file the same as such the allegation stated in the complaint petitioner remains unchallenged. Regarding this matter we can safely state that on failure to file WV by the OP tantamount to admission of the allegations stated in the complaint petition. On perusal of the photocopies, premium deposit receipts of the policy reveal that the tenure of the said policy was for 6 years and the photocopies of the letters issued by the Op4 and the letters sent by the complainant to the OPs and SEBI is showing that being dissatisfied with the said policy the complainant was running from post to pillar to cancel his policies since 2015. Time and again the complainant tried to communicate with the OPs. But no initiative is taken by the OPs in this regard.Therefore,under the above facts and circumstances, unfair trade practice and deficiency in serviceon the part of the OPis proved and the complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for.

Based on the above discussion we disposed of the consumer case in the following terms:-

1.         OPs are jointly and severally directed to make refund of Rs.10,40,283/-to the complainant.

2.         OPs are further jointly and severally directed to make payment of RS.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant due to deficiency in service.

3.         OPs are also jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.25,000/-as cost of litigation to the complainant.

4.         Above payments shall be made within 06 weeks from the date of this order failing which the amount shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of the order till its realization.

Consumer case is thus allowed ex parte against the OP and disposed of as per above observation.

Copy of the judgement be supplied to the parties as per rules. Judgement be uploaded on the website of this Commission forthwith for perusal of the parties.