Smt. RENUKAMBA.C

        Member

1.       The complainant has brought this complaint before the Commission on the basis of the following facts.

2.     The complainant submits that agent of the opposite parties approached and convinced the complaint to buy a life insurance policy of opposite party. The agent of the opposite parties sold a policy to the complainant by name Dream Endowment plan which bears the policy no 004146223 the said policy was for a term 30 years commencing from 14.07.2010 to 14.07.2040. The basic premium was Rs.79,635/- p.a at the time of selling the said policy to the complainant the gent of the opposite  had informed the complainant that the life insurance of complainant is completely covered  and has to pay a minimum of three installments and in case the complainant is unable to pay the same, need not worry about it. The premium that is paid after three years is only optional and it is more an investment which would give him a very high returns, the agent of the opposite parties also assured that if the complainant wants to discontinue the policy for any reason, the complainant could do so after three years and the complainant will be eligible to get the accrued benefits and also entitled to refund of the premium which the complainant has paid. The complainant states that the agent of the opposite party took the complainant and introduced to one official of the opposite party company by name M.Raju who also convinced the complainant and reiterated as to what the agent had assured the complainant.

3.     The complainant submits that he completely believed the words of agent of the opposite parties and the official of the opposite party company and decided to buy the said insurance policy stated above.

4.   The complainant submits that he has paid the premium for three years amounting to Rs.2,38,905.06 when the complainant decided to surrender the said insurance policy the complainant approached the office of the opposite parties to surrender and receive the accrued benefits and the premium paid by the complainant after three years the complainant went into a shock when the office of the opposite parties informed that the complainant is not entitled to any amount and the policy is already cancelled for nonpayment of premium.

5.    The complainant submits that any amount of pleading with the officials of the opposite parties did not yield any result the complainant informed to office of the opposite parties that he is ready to forego the accrued benefits and at least return the premium of Rs.2,38,905.06/- paid by him, the office of the opposite parties bluntly informed the complainant that he is not entitled for any refund and they will not pay the complainant even a single paisa.

6. The complainant submits that the act of opposite parties company in misleading people and selling insurance policies and by going against the promises made by them to the complainant amounts to unfair  trade practice and the same is opposed to law.

7.   The complainant is put to great hardship and mental agony due to opposite parties call outs attitude and he is entitled for damages.

8.  The complainant submits that he had sent a registered legal notice dated 15.10.2018 through his counsel calling upon the opposite party to refund the premium of Rs.2,38,905.06/- paid by him along with interest at 12% pa and also damages towards mental agony with the notice charges. The said notice was served on the opposite parties. They gave an evasive reply date 02.11.2018 quoting certain conditions of the policy and they justified the non refund of the premium by stating that they have acted as per the terms and conditions of the policy. It is submitted that the said act of the opposite parties in justifying their act of deficiency of  service and unfair trade practice is opposed to law. It is submitted that these terms and conditions was not brought to the notice of the complainant before the opposite parties sold the policy to the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant does not know English and it was the duty of the opposite parties to print the terms and conditions in a language known to the local people or area.

9.    It is submitted that the contention in para 4 of the reply that being a ulip policy  the actual payment of the benefit under the policy will very based on the actual performance of the investment fund chosen by your client. It may be further noted that the policy solicitated by your client is also subject charge such as fund management charge, policy administration charge and mortality charges, which are deducted as per the policy provisions. It is submitted that the complainant is not a fund manager or investors in any shares till now it is submitted that only on the promises and assurance made by the agent and the official of the opposite parties that it is beneficial to the complainant, he had decided to go for the insurance policy. It is submitted that the very act of the opposite parties in not managing the funds of the complainant properly and thereby causing loss to the complainant amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice it is submitted that the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant has not paid further premium and thereby the insurance policy has lapsed is also opposed to law and amounts to unfair trade practice. It is submitted that the said fact was not brought to the notice of the complainant even when he approached the opposite parties in the month of September 2018 seeking for refund of the premium paid. It is submitted that only in the reply to the legal notice they have taken the contention for the first time, without prejudice it is submitted that even if the complainant had continued in paying the premium he would have lost even that money. It is submitted that the opposite parties have taken the complainant for a ride. The act of the opposite parties in contending that the complainant is not entitled even to a single rupees out of Rs. 2,38,905.06/- which was his hard earned money and paid as premium believing the opposite parties has caused shock and mental agony to the complainant and as such he is entitled for damages.

10.  It is submitted that the complainant is well within time as  the policy is in force and at no point of time the opposite parties have informed that the policy has lapsed as contended in the reply notice

11. The complainant filed his affidavit evidence by way of examination in chief same was taken as Pw1 and got marked as Exhibits P1 and P3. Heard the oral arguments of the complainant counsel  and the matter set down for orders

12. Opposite party nos 1 and 2 are filed vakalath but not contested.

13.      The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:

1. Whether the complainant has proved that there is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought?

2. What order?

14.     Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1:- In the negative.

Point No.2:- As per final order for the following

                                                            :: R E A S O N S ::

15.     Point No.1:- It is observed from the complaint that, opposite parties approached and convinced the complainant to buy a life insurance policy of opposite party. The agent of the opposite party sold a policy to the complainant by name “Dream Endowment Plan” which bears the policy No.004146223 and said policy was for a term of 30 years commencing from 14.07.2010 to 14.07.2040. The basic premium is Rs.79,635/- p.a at the time of selling the said policy. Complainant was informed by opposite party that his life insurance is completely covered and he has to pay a minimum of 3 installments, if the complainant wants to discontinue the policy , after 3 years he is eligible to get the accrued benefits and also entitled to refund the premium which he has paid. Though complainant had paid 3 complete installments for 3 years and requested opposite party to refund, opposite party refused to refund the premium paid by the complainant which the commission has noticed.

16.    The policy was terminated on 14.08.2015 due to nonpayment of premium amount as on 14.06.2014  but legal notice was issued by the complainant in 15.10.2018  there is laps of more than two years for the complainant to approach the commissions. Therefore the complainant not eligible for the any relief sought as it is. The complaint is barred by limitation hence the complaint is dismissed. Hence, point no.1 is answered in the negative.

     Point no.2:- In view of the above observations, we proceed to pass the following.

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint is dismissed.
2. Furnish the copy of order to both parties at free of cost.