In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 336/2011
1) Mrs. Sukla Adhikary,
E-2/4, Ultadanga, VIII-M, Housing
Co-operative Society, Kolkata-67 and
“Natural View Apartment”, Flat no.N-7,
82, Ultadanga Main Road, Kolkata-67. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) The Branch Manager,
Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
“A G Towers”, 4th Floor, 125/1, Park Street,
Kolkata-16, P.S. Park Street.
2) The Manager,
Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opp Golf Course,
DLF-Phase V, Sector-43, Gurgaon-122003. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Order No. 15 Dated 16-05-2013.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant had agreed to accept the proposal advanced by and on behalf of the o.p. company in respect of the policy and accordingly the complainant signed the said proposal form and which was submitted and an agreement was executed by and between the parties on 5.7.06 the said agreement was executed at the office of o.p. no.1.
Accordingly the complainant paid three regular premium of Rs.1,50,000/- each as such, a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- was paid by the complainant, in other wards the complainant continued the said policy for three years.
Thereafter, due to personal / financial inconveniences the complainant was not able to continue the said policy, and one application dt.3.9.09 was issued to the o.p. no.1 praying for discontinuation of the said policy, thereafter, again on 17.2.10 another application was made praying the same. In reply to the said letters o.p. no.1 issued a letter dt.25.2.10 whereby the complainant was requested to submit original policy documents.
The complainant states that it reveals from the letter dt.25.2.10 that the complainant had made request for surrendering the policy but the intention and/or contention of the complainant was not surrendering the policy, th e complainant had only informed to the o.p. company about the desirous of the complainant to discontinue the premium and the complainant would take refund the deposited premium as per own convenient of the complainant, as such the question of the original documents policy does not arise at that stage, stating such facts the complainant had issued a letter dt.8.3.10 to the customer service group.
A letter dt.22.3.10 issued by o.p. company whereby it was confirmed that new policy status of the complainant is “in force Premium discontinuance” stating with some points.
Thereafter, a letter dt.15.1.11 issued by o.p. company to the complainant whereby it was informed that since the surrender value of the said policy is less that first year’s premium thus in such a situation as per terms and conditions, the said policy of the complainant had become “Auto foreclosure” and as such a sum of Rs.1,50-,807/- was refunded to the complainant through a cheque being no.061955 dt.14.2.11 drawn on Royal Bank of Scotland, New Delhi in favour of the complainant. In this respect the complainant states that no such terms and condition s have laid down the said policy and even the proper clarification has not been given to the complainant about the “Auto foreclosure”.
Immediately after receiving the said letter and cheque of Rs.1,50,508/- the complainant issued a letter dt.23.2.11 to the o.p. no.1 stating that the complainant did not surrender the said policy but only the complainant had discontinued the premium even after continuing / completion of three years premiums. That apart, the complainant did neither ask for foreclosure the said policy nor refund back the deposited premiums. As such, the aid cheque of Rs.1,50,807/- was sent back to the office of o.p. no.1.
Complainant states that the said cheque of Rs.1,50,807/- was again sent to the complainant by the o.p. company and the complainant received the said cheque without prejudice the rights and contentions and substantiating all such facts a letter dt.5.3.11 was also issued to the o.p. company.
In reply to the letter dt.5.3.11 of the complainant, the o.p. company issued a letter dt.16.3.11 whereby it as conveyed about the clarification of the grievances of the complainant, but the same was not satisfactory.
Out of Rs.4,50,000/- the complainant has been refunded only Rs.1,50,807/- after being allegedly declared the policy as ‘auto foreclosure’ and ‘in force notice period’, it is not understandable to the complainant how the policy became ‘auto foreclosure’ and ‘in force notice period’, even no such statement showing that the complainant is receivable only a sum of Rs.1,50,807/- whereas the complainant has paid Rs.4,50,000/-.
The complainant submits that from the text and tenor of the said policy executed by and between the complainant and o.p. no.1, having policy no.WLG1304004, it becomes thus apparently clear that, the o.p. company has preferred to undertake an admitted liability to the extent as mentioned in the said policy and therefore, any attempt made by the said o.p. company subsequently to circumvent the said liability, shall tantamount to ‘deficiency of service’ as defined in section 2(1)(g) of the C.P. Act, 1986, as it shall be presumed that there has been inadequacy in the manner of performance which is required to be maintained by the said o.p. company under the statute for the time being in force in pursuance of the contractual relation entered into by and/or between the parties. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainant had agreed to accept the proposal advanced by and on behalf of the o.p. company in respect of the policy and accordingly the complainant signed the said proposal form and which was submitted and an agreement was executed by and between the company and complainant on 5.7.06 the said agreement was executed at the office of o.p. no.1. And accordingly the complainant paid three regular premium of Rs.1,50,000/- each as such, a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- was paid by the complainant, in other wards the complainant continued the said policy for three years.
Thereafter, due to personal / financial inconveniences the complainant was not able to continue the said policy, and one application dt.3.9.09 was issued to the o.p. no.1 praying for discontinuation of the said policy, thereafter, again on 17.2.10 another application was made praying the same. In reply to the said letters o.p. no.1 issued a letter dt.25.2.10 whereby the complainant was requested to submit original policy documents.
We further find from the record that it reveals from the letter dt.25.2.10 that the complainant had made request for surrendering the policy but the intention and/or contention of the complainant was not surrendering the policy, the complainant had only informed to the o.p. company about the desirous of the complainant to discontinue the premium and the complainant would take refund the deposited premium as per own convenient of the complainant, as such the question of the original documents policy does not arise at that stage, stating such facts the complainant had issued a letter dt.8.3.10 to the customer service group.
It is seen from the record that a letter dt.22.3.10 issued by o.p. company whereby it was confirmed that new policy status of the complainant is “in force Premium discontinuance” stating with some points. Thereafter, a letter dt.15.1.11 issued by o.p. company to the complainant whereby it was informed that since the surrender value of the said policy is less that first year’s premium thus in such a situation as per terms and conditions, the said policy of the complainant had become “Auto foreclosure” and as such a sum of Rs.1,50-,807/- was refunded to the complainant through a cheque being no.061955 dt.14.2.11 drawn on Royal Bank of Scotland, New Delhi in favour of the complainant. In this respect the complainant states that no such terms and condition s have laid down the said policy and even the proper clarification has not been given to the complainant about the “Auto foreclosure”.
It is also seen that immediately after receiving the said letter and cheque of Rs.1,50,508/- the complainant issued a letter dt.23.2.11 to the o.p. no.1 stating that the complainant did not surrender the said policy but only the complainant had discontinued the premium even after continuing / completion of three years premiums. That apart, the complainant did neither ask for foreclosure the said policy nor refund back the deposited premiums. As such, the said cheque of Rs.1,50,807/- was sent back to the office of o.p. no.1.
Further case of the complainant is that the said cheque of Rs.1,50,807/- was again sent to the complainant by the o.p. company and the complainant received the said cheque without prejudice the rights and contentions and substantiating all such facts a letter dt.5.3.11 was also issued to the o.p. company. In reply to the letter dt.5.3.11 of the complainant, the o.p. company issued a letter dt.16.3.11 whereby it as conveyed about the clarification of the grievances of the complainant, but the same was not satisfactory.
It transpires from the record that out of Rs.4,50,000/- the complainant has been refunded only Rs.1,50,807/- after being allegedly declared the policy as ‘auto foreclosure’ and ‘in force notice period’, it is not understandable to the complainant how the policy became ‘auto foreclosure’ and ‘in force notice period’, even no such statement showing that the complainant is receivable only a sum of Rs.1,50,807/- whereas the complainant has paid Rs.4,50,000/-.
Further case of the complainant is that from the text and tenor of the said policy executed by and between the complainant and o.p. no.1, having policy no.WLG1304004, it becomes thus apparently clear that, the o.p. company has preferred to undertake an admitted liability to the extent as mentioned in the said policy and therefore, any attempt made by the said o.p. company subsequently to circumvent the said liability, shall tantamount to ‘deficiency of service’ as defined in section 2(1)(g) of the C.P. Act, 1986, as it shall be presumed that there has been inadequacy in the manner of performance which is required to be maintained by the said o.p. company under the statute for the time being in force in pursuance of the contractual relation entered into by and/or between the parties.
In view of the findings above and on perusal of the entire materials on record we find that o.ps. had sufficient deficiency in service being service provider to their consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to pay Rs.2,99,193/- (Rupees two lakhs ninety nine thousand one hundred ninety three) only to the complainant as principal claim and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
