Andhra Pradesh

Anantapur

CC/54/2020

K.Sreelakshmi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorized Signatory, Exide Life Insurance Com.Ltd, (Previously ING Life Insurance Company Limit - Opp.Party(s)

J.Chittaranjan

24 Jun 2022

ORDER

                                                                         Date of filing: 02.11.2020

                         Date of Disposal:24.06.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ANANTHAPURAMU.

PRESENT: - PRESIDENT: Smt. M.Sreelatha,B.A., M.L., PGDCLP,

Member: Kum.D.Grace Mary, M.A., M.L.,

Member: Sri B.Gopinath, B.A., B.L.,

Friday, the 24^thday of June, 2022

                                                                                           C.C.No.54/2020     

 

Between:

 

Smt.K.Sreelakshmi,

W/o Desai Subramanyam,

D.No.7-109, Prakash Road,

Ananthapuramu.                                         …          Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1.     The Authorized Signatory,

        Exide Life Insurance Company Limited,

        (Previously ING Life Insurance Company Limited),

        3^rd Floor, P.Techno Park, No.3/1,

        Millers Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka State.

 

2.     The Branch Manager,

        Exide Life Insurance Company Limited,

        (Previously ING Life Insurance Company Limited),

        O/o Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited,

        (ING Vysya Bank Limited),

        Sai Nagar, Ananthapuramu.                                         … Opposite Parties

 

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri J.Chittaranjan, Advocate for the complainant; Sri G.Anjan Kumar, Advocate for the Opposite Parties 1 & 2; After perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Commission delivered the following:

 

O R D E R

 

Sri B.Gopinath, Male Member: -This complaint was filed by the complainant under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- towards policy amount  along with interest and Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and legal expenses.

2.     It is averred in the complaint that the complainant had taken ING Golden Life Policy from the 1^stopposite party on 19.08.2009and the complainant paid Rs.1,50,000/- per year for 5 years through the agent by name C.L.V. Rajyalakshmi. On the assurance of the repayment of premium after maturity on 19.08.2019 if Rs.19,00,000/- and the complainant paid premiums regularly without any default. The complainant learnt that the ING Vysya Insurance Company was taken over by Exide Insurance Company Limited. The complainant want to reimbursement of repayment of premium amount besides accrued amount totaling an amount of Rs.19,00,000/- and even before the date of maturity of the said policy the complainant sent a letter to the 1^st opposite party on 21.06.2019 requesting the 1^st opposite party for the payment of entire amount of Rs.14,46,745.92 and the same is to be credited in her S.B Account No.6432, Andhra Bank, New Town Branch, (Court Road Branch), Ananthapuramu. The 1^st opposite party sent a letter dt.21.06.2019 that the policy is vesting on 19.08.2019 and the current value of IPA (Individual Pension Account) of Rs.14,46,745.92 by mentioning three options therein to the complainant and immediately within 30 days the complainant through her request letter dt.11.07.2019 requested the                        1^st opposite party to reimburse the said amount of Rs.14,46,745.92. But the 1^st opposite party instead of reimbursing the said amount of Rs.14,46,745.92 to the complainant again issued a policy by name Exide Life New immediately Annuity with ROPP policy bearing No.04077611 dt.31.08.2019 in favour of the complainant notwithstanding the request letter of the complainant dt.11.07.2019 for the reimbursement of the matured amount of Rs.14,46,745.92 is nothing but deficiency of service and  sheer negligence and the said new policy is issued against the  will and no written request of the complainant and even there is no such proposal submitted by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party. The complainant issued a legal notice dt.06.11.2019 narrating obtaining policy, and to refund the matured amount to complainant bank account. Again the complainant got issued a legal notice dt.03.06.2020 and the same was served to the                      2^nd opposite party, but the opposite party neither replied to the legal notice nor paid the matured amount. The 1^st opposite party sent a letter along with cheque bearing No.910208 of Citi Bank dt.08.09.2020 for Rs.1,08,796.87 stating that the same is issued for Annuity Payout Policy bearing no.4077611 instead of  payment of matured amount of the policy. Immediately the complainant got returned the cheque through her counsel along with another legal notice dt.19.09.2020 and the same was served to the opposite parties and taking back the said returned cheque by the 1^st opposite party not paid the matured amount. There is a gross negligence on the part of the opposite parties issuing the new policy without the consent and will of the complainant and there is deficiency of service in repayment of the matured amount of the policy as per the terms and conditions agreed upon. Hence, this complaint.

3.     The 1^st opposite party filed written version it contains that the averments made by the complainant in her complaint and affidavit are totally false, frivolous and against the settled principles of law and public policy. As the policy is a ULIP natured it is only for business purpose. And this ULIP policies are invested in the share market is of no doubt of speculative gains. Hence this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this case. It is submitted that the policy bearing No.01630186 was issued to complainant on 19.08.2009 which was a ULIP product Exide Life New Golden Life with vesting date as 19.08.2019. The complainant paid five premiums as per the policy. Thereafter prior to the vesting date the company sent the communications to the complainant on 12.02.2019, 21.06.2019 and 21.08.2019 requesting the complainant to give her conformation on the annuity option chosen, as the policy is vesting on 19.08.2019 as per the policy terms and conditions. Despite receipt of the communication the complainant has not exercised the option of annuity under the product, hence option 1 as mentioned in those notices was applied and the policy was auto converted into immediate annuity policy and policy bearing No.04077611 which was issued to the complainant on 31.08.2019 as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is denied that there is any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party. As stated that the complainant was never entitled for the entire maturity amount. As per the terms and conditions of the policy the complainant only had an option to invest the entire amount of the IPA by purchasing an annuity plan or to receive 1/3 of the amount in her IPA as lump sum. The balance amount can be used for purchasing an annuity plan.  It is submitted that the option was given to the complainant prior to the vesting date however she failed to choose any option. Therefore the policy was auto converted to immediately annuity plan. It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the complaint made by the complainant being devoid for any merits be dismissed with costs.

4.     The 2^nd opposite party filed memo adopting the written version of the 1^st opposite party.

5.     The affidavit of complainant Smt. K.Sreelakshmi is filed as chief examination of PW1 and Ex.A1 to A12 are marked on behalf of the complainant. Affidavit of one P.Chidanand is filed on behalf of the                           1^stopposite party as RW1 and Ex.B1 to B6 are marked on behalf of the                     1^stopposite party.

6.     The 2^nd opposite party filed memo adopting the evidence on affidavit of the 1^st opposite party.

7.     Now the points for consideration and determination are:-

        i)      Whether this commission is having jurisdiction to entertain

                complaint.

        ii)      Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of opposite

                parties 1 and 2.

        iii)     Where the complainant is entitled reliefs as prayed.

        iv)     To what relief.

 

8.     Heard both sides.

9. POINT No.1: - After thorough observation of the pleadings and evidence on affidavits of complainant and other parties documents.  The complainant was taken policy on 19.08.2009 and the opposite parties also admitted that the complainant has taken policy No.01630186 under Ex.A1 dt.19.08.2009. The opposite parties contended that the said policy is a ULIP policy in nature and in this policy benefits are speculative gain, and speculative investment, hence this matter does not come under the Consumer Protection Act,2019. Therefore, the opposite parties contention is that this matter is out of Consumer Commission jurisdiction. But when the Commission go through the pleadings of complainant and when the question arises that if it is the nature of unit linked policies. The complainant explained that as per guidelines in No.049/IRDA/ AC/ULIP/ Dt.01.01.2008 there shall be acceptance and acknowledgement of terms and conditions of the ULIP’s by the complainant at the time of entering with insurance contract at par with the proposal form. opposite parties did not denied any where in their pleadings that agent named rajyalakshmi of ING Visya insurance company was canvassed to complainant to join in this original policy by showing the maturity benefits at the end of the vesting period Rs 19,00,000/-. But in this case the complainant has not accepted the terms and conditions of other parties, there is no proof of acceptance of new policy of opposite parties by the complainant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in a case reported in AIR 1984 Section 1014= 1984 of Supreme Court (SC)97   that acceptance of insurance proposal completes only when it is communicated to offered.  silence or receipt and retention (retaining) of premium cannot be construed as acceptance, and taking into consideration of complainant’s age 75 years lady and she is a retired government employee at this old age how can she expect to invest her savings in speculated gains and she is a well economically settled lady she is getting her pension nearly ten lakhs per annum by this there is no that much need to her to take that much stress on speculative gains at this age i.e., in ULIP policies. The opposite parties created New Annuity Policy on behalf of complainant is completely without her consent/acceptance. And as per guidelines on unit linked insurance policy of IRDA as said above circular- No cover should be extended after the expiry of policy term and only settlement options (which are clearly outlined at the commencement of contract) may be allowed.  9^th guideline as mentioned- The period of settlement should not in any case be extended beyond a period of five years from the date of maturity. The same can be seen that there is an endorsement of terms and conditions to the policy which was already issued by the then ING Vysya insurance infavour of the complainant. Whereas when transparency was observed by the part of the opposite parties did not obey/ followed the instructions given by the IRDA in circular No.049/IRDA/ACTL/ULIP/January-08 dt.01.01.2008. The IRDA issued this circular about the transparency and enhance policyholders confidence. LIC companies are required to conform to the format (table-A) enclosed, which lists out all charges to be paid and also the amount available for investment in each policy year.  The policyholder must sign both table         A & B with the sales person on the day when he or she sign the proposal form. These tables shall become part of policy document and a copy must be sent to the policyholder along with the policy document. There is no such table A signed by the complainant. As per the IRDA guidelines as the policy is matured on vesting date and then the question of lacking jurisdiction does not arise at all as the contract of insurance is completed and tenure of 10 years is over. Even though the policy is a ULIP in nature the opposite parties council fails to establish that complainant taken ING Vysya policy for sake of business. And when the policy is taken for her only livelihood and not for any business then this compliant comes under consumer protection act 2019. Hence this compliant is allowed in favour of compliant.

10.POINT NO.2:- The council for complainant argued that even after the vesting time the opposite  parties failed to pay matured amount it causes a lot of mental stress to the complainant for which the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation, opposite parties further stated that they have already issued notice to complainant to choose any option but the complainant herself failed to choose any option. Hence there is no negligence on part of opposite parties. Ex.A11 policy bond issued by the ING Vysya Life Insurance Company bond clearly shows that the type of policy name as “ING Golden Life- Regular/limited date of the proposal dt.14.08.2009, vesting period 10 years vesting dt.19.08.2019, vesting age 75 years and also the opposite parties endorsed that in written the maturity amount on maturity date of policy is Rs.10,34,796/-  interest @ 6% P.A., and Rs.13,99,990/- interest @ 10% P.A., with non-guaranteed option. The complainant paid all his five premiums and waited for another five years for vesting time. The complainant is in this hope that she will get approximately Rs.14,00,000/- of amount, but inspite of reply of the maturity amount of Rs.14,46,745/- surprisingly the opposite parties sent Ex.A7 dt.08.09.2020 and Exide Insurance Annuity Policy greetings enclosed with cheque bearing No.910208 stating that Exide had proceeded complainant  into new Annuity Payout Policy immediately after her previous ING policy vesting date and new policy number is 4077611. And hereby called upon the opposite parties to pay the matured amount under the policy No.01630186 ING Golden Life forthwith within fifteen days of time from the date of receipt of this notice. This Commission observed that the opposite parties issued New Exide Annuity Payout Policy to the complainant without her consent/acceptance. After maturity of original policy No.01630186. Ex.B3, B4 and B5 on 12.02.2019, 21.06.2019 and 21.08.2019 respectively issued conformation proposal notices to complainant in those notices opposite parties themselves mentioned that the current value in complainant individual pension account is INR Rs.13,80,446.17; Rs.14,44,745.92; Rs.14,70,019.58 respectively, The opposite parties filed Ex.B3,B4 & B5, to support their case, but those are against to opposite parties as they proved that policy is matured with certain amount on vesting date. And also noted in that notice that after receiving this notice “kindly submit below listed documents: Original Cancelled Cheque with your name and account number pre-printed or duly attested bank statement with Bank Seal. Self attested valid Photo ID proof. Self Attested address proof (if there is a change in communication address). Current passport size photograph. Self attested PAN copy. At nearest Exide Life Insurance Branch to help us process this Annuity Payout Policy Plan. But the complainant did not respond to the notice and even she did not submit any documents to Exide any Branch Office. Even though without documents and submission of the complainant, the opposite parties issued New Exide Annuity Payout and issued cheque for Rs.1,00,000/-. The council for complainant brought to notice of this commission that the other parties used to send cheque though this case is in pending. This is purely opposite parties’ deficiency in service.

11.POINT No.3:- Hence the opposite parties are failed to refund the matured amount to complainant and there is no consent or acceptance of complainant  on issuing of new Exide policy, so opposite parties are liable to refund the matured amount of Rs.14,70,019/- with interest of 6% P.A., of policy No:01630186 and Rs.10,000/- for deficiency of service and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- for legal expenses.

12.POINT No.4:-       In the result, the complaint is partly allowed by directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to repay the matured/vesting amount of Rs.14,70,019/- with interest @ 6% P.A., from the date of maturity till realization, Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Dictated to the steno directly on desktop, corrected and pronounced by us in open Commission, this the 24^th day of June, 2022.

 

                 Sd/-                                                               Sd/-                                                        Sd/-

                  MEMBER,                                         PRESIDENT                                               MEMBER

DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION

             ANANTHAPURAMU                             ANANTHAPURAMU                     ANANTHAPURAMU

 

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EVIDENCE ON CHIEF AFFIDAVIT

ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:

 

PW1: Smt. K.Sreelakshmi, Complainant.

ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES

 

RW1: P.Chidanand, Deputy General Manager-Legal ofopposite parties.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex.A1        Attested copy of statement of account from 19.08.2009 to 23.08.2019 issued by the 1^st opposite party in favour of the complainant.

Ex.A2         Office copy of legal notice dt.06.11.2019 got issued by the

                complainant to the opposite parties.

Ex.A3         Original reply notice dt.27.11.2019 sent by the 1^st opposite party

 to the counsel for the complainant.

Ex.A4         Office copy of legal notice dt.03.06.2020 got issued by the

                counsel for the complainant to the opposite parties.

Ex.A5         Postal receipts dt.03.06.2020.

Ex.A6        Served postal acknowledgement singed by the 2^nd opposite

                party.

Ex.A7         Letter dt.08.09.2020 sent by the 1^st opposite part to the

                complainant.

Ex.A8         Office copy of legal notice dt.19.09.2020 got issued by the

                counsel for complainant to the opposite parties.

Ex.A9        Postal receipts dt.21.09.2020.

Ex.A10       Served postal acknowledgement singed by the 2^nd opposite

                party.

Ex.A11       Original policy bearing No.01630186 issued by the 1^stopposite

                party in favour of the complainant dt.19.08.2009.

Ex.A12       Letter dt.12.02.2019 sent by the 1^st opposite party to the

                complainant.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THEOPPOSITE PARTIES

 

Ex.B1        Attested copy of Proposal form for Unit Linked Pension Policy 

                issued by the 1^st opposite party in favour of the complainant.

Ex.B2        Attested copy of Exide Life Golden Life terms and conditions .

Ex.B3        Attested copy of letter dt.12.02.2019 sent by the 1^st opposite

                party to the complainant.

Ex.B4        Attested copy of letter dt.21.06.2019 sent by the 1^st opposite

                party to the complainant.

Ex.B5        Attested copy of letter dt.21.08.2019 sent by the 1^st opposite

                party to the complainant.

Ex.B6        Part-A covering letter with policy schedule issued by the

1^st opposite party in favour of the complainant.

 

                Sd/-                                                          Sd/-                                                                                 Sd/-

                MEMBER,                                  PRESIDNET                                                                      MEMBER

DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION

             ANANTHAPURAMU                      ANANTHAPURAMU                                          ANANTHAPURAMU