22.09.2017
MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, HON’BLE MEMBER.
With this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Appellant/Complainant has challenged the judgment and order dated 18.02.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas in Complaint Case No. 305/2014 dismissing the complaint on contest without cost.
The facts of the case, in a nutshell, is the Appellant/Complainant took three policies from the Respondent/O.P. No. 3 against three separate applications. The Appellant/Complainant, as alleged, did not receive the due amount he was supposed to get against any of the said three policies. As alleged, in case of the 3rd and last policy, in particular, Respondent/O.P. even went on to resort to practicing fraud upon the Appellant/Complainant who, being aggrieved with the Respondent/O.P. filed the aforementioned complaint case before the Ld. District Forum which the impugned judgment and order relates to.
Heard the Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of both the parites.
The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant submitted that the Appellant/Complainant paid an amount of Rs.74,000/- as premium against the lifetime policy bearing No. 03291573 dated 29.08.2006 against Application No. 68441774 but, got a refund of Rs.76,571/- only in two instalments of Rs.48,000/- and Rs.28,571/- on 23.09.2009 and 15.10.2010 respectively. As contended, he got only 76,571/- against a paid premium of Rs.74,000/- during the period of 3 years. The amount of Rs.74,000/-, as continued, would have fetched him better benefit in any other investment plan.
As submitted, the Appellant/Complainant paid a further amount of premium to the tune of Rs.26,000/- in a 2nd policy bearing No. 08418013 against an application No. PP18029311. The Policy was admittedly foreclosed due to non-payment of premium. An amount of Rs.9,042/-, however, was refunded in the account of the Appellant/Complainant beyond his knowledge. The Appellant/Complainant allegedly came to know about such refund on expiry of a long period and on enquiry from the Respondent/O.P. about the status of the policy.
As further submitted, the Appellant/Complainant was allured to deposit an amount of Rs.12,000/- further by one Mrs. Rumki Roy for revival of the foreclosed 2nd policy mentioned above. The 3rd policy bearing No. 16843821 was initiated accordingly against an application No. PA46372623 on a first time payment of premium amount to Rs.11,958/-. As continued, the said Rumki Roy again contacted the Appellant/Complainant that an investment of Rs.22,000/- more would enable him to get his 3rd policy switchover to Birla Life Insurance Company Limited.
Sensing some foul play behind such unusual claim of money by the Respondent/O.P., the Appellant/Complainant contacted the Respondent/O.P. only to come to know about the policy number of the third policy without, however, receiving any policy paper.
Pointing out the deficiency in service and also deceptive practices adopted by the Respondent/O.P. as above, the Ld. Advocate prayed for the appeal to be allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and order.
The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent/O.P., per contra submitted that the Appellant/Complainant, in his prayer, applied for partial withdrawal of the deposited amount in respect of 1st policy. An amount of Rs.48,000/- was released after his prayer being processed. The Appellant/Complainant was also made aware of the insurance coverage of the reduced number of units consequent upon refund as aforesaid through their letter dated 18.09.2009 by the Respondent/O.P.
On receipt of further communication for full surrender of the subject policy no. 1, the Respondent/O.P. released final amount of Rs.28,571/- only. Ld. Advocate went on to submit that there should not be any confusion towards refund of lesser amount in view of the partial withdrawal of the amount and that the insurance, consequent upon the said partial withdrawal, should be of reduced unit were communicated to the Appellant/Complainant at the time of final withdrawal.
As regards the second policy, the Ld. Advocate maintained that the amount of Rs.9,042/- was refunded in strict adherence to the policy terms and conditions. The minimum return of the said amount was made only in view of the fact that the policy was foreclosed. In fact, the return, as aforesaid, was made only in consideration that the policy was unit linked one. Anything otherwise would have made the Appellant/Complainant entitled to nothing.
In the third policy, as the Ld. Advocate pointed out, the Appellant/Complainant should have made Ms. Rumki Roy, a party to the case as the Respondent/O.P. did not have any idea about the discussion that the Appellant/Complainant had with that Rumki Roy.
Moreover, the complaint itself was indicative about a fraud being taken place in respect of the 3rd policy. As submitted, since there was the charge of a criminal conspiracy, the Commission probably had no authority to try the instant case.
With the above submission, the Ld. Advocate prayed for dismissal of the appeal affirming the impugned order as the deficiency in rendering services, as alleged, against the Respondent/O.P. had not been substantiated.
Perused the papers on record. In an insurance policy, the parties involved are bound by a contractual Agreement. In case of first policy, the insured resorted to partial withdrawal of the deposited premium followed by final withdrawal and got the amount of Rs.48,000/- and Rs.28,571/- respectively in two separate instalments. The transfer of the said two amounts to the Appellant/Complainant was verified from the bank statement furnished at running page 56 and 57 respectively. The receipt of lesser amount than that as per policy appeared to be due to partial withdrawal of the amount which led to the reduction of units under coverage and the same appeared to have been communicated to the Appellant/Complainant upon such partial withdrawal was given effect to (running page 61).
As regards the second policy, the same was foreclosed due to non-payment of premium. Admittedly, no amount exceeding Rs.26,000/- was deposited against the said policy by the Appellant/Complainant. Since the policy was unit linked, the Respondent/O.P., in terms of the policy condition, deposited an amount of Rs.9,042/- to the account of the Appellant/Complainant which was, admittedly, beyond the knowledge of the Appellant/Complainant.
As regards the third policy, an amount of Rs.11,958/- was paid in single instalment by the Appellant/Complainant allegedly being told to deposit the said amount by one Ms. Rumki Roy who not being made a party to the complaint, the status of the policy with its terms and conditions could not be ascertained.
The Appellant/Complainant, as alleged, found ingredients of fraud in executing the third policy on the part of the Respondent/O.P. which being a criminal offence, this Forum lagged the authority to adjudicate on it.
In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, we do not find any tangible reason that can establish any deficiency, as alleged, on the part of the Respondent/O.P., rather, violation of the terms of the policy was eminent on the part of the Appellant/Complainant.
Further, the Appellant/Complainant in his complaint claimed an amount of Rs.19 lack as compensation against a total investment of Rs.1,11,959/- in the form of premium against the policies in question. Such high claim of compensation without any break-up and justification with sufficient reasons added only to the demerits of the complaint debarring it from any favourable consideration.
Such being our observation, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the Ld. District Forum does not deserve any intervention from this end. Hence, ordered, that the appeal be and the same is dismissed on context without cost. The impugned judgment and order stands affirmed.
