For Complainant         :           Sri K. K. Behera, Advocate & associates.

For Op No.1 & 2          :           Sri Trinath Singh Lal, Advocate & associates.

1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he obtained Reliance Child Plan under the Ops for policy and premium term of 5 years and the OP.1 received the first year premium of Rs.1, 00,000.50 along with necessary papers and the Ops issued policy documents vide Contract No.18130334 dt.31.10.2010.  It is submitted that the Ops demanded and took Rs.2040/- extra on the premiums of last 4 years by ignoring terms of the policy.  It is submitted that the Child Plan obtained by the complainant bears money back every year from the end of 2^nd year of policy i.e. on 31^st Oct., 2012, 2013, 2014 & 2015 with vested bonus, death benefits and addl. benefits attached to the policy but the Ops have paid Rs.93, 237.50 each on October, 2012, 2013, 2014 & 2015 totalling Rs.3, 72,950.00 and further during Oct., 2015 the Ops also have paid Rs.1, 33,769.70 with grand total of Rs.5, 06,719.70 to the complainant instead of his deposit amount of Rs.5, 02,042.50.  It is further submitted that he gets financial benefit of Rs.4, 677.20 from the Ops at the time of maturity.  It is also submitted that the complainant on 07.11.2015 had made a representation before OP.1 to consider his case but they remained silent.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.2040/- taken as extra with interest and to recalculate the maturity benefits and pay the differential amount with compensation and cost of Rs.50, 000/- to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops 1 & 2 filed counter in joint with certain objections and admitted to have sold the policy in question to the complainant on 31.10.2010.  It is contended that on the basis of proposal application No.B1364958 of the complainant, Policy No.18130334 was issued in favour of the complainant  with policy and premium term of 5 years and the complainant has paid a total premium amount of Rs.5, 02,042/-.  It is further contended that the policy premium was Rs.1, 00,001/- but due to increase in Service Tax and Education Cess by the Govt., the policy amount was increased and to Rs.1, 00,510.25 each year from year-2011 and the complainant has received maturity pay outs from the year, 2012 till the maturity and thus has received Rs.5, 06,719.70.  The Ops also contended that investment in insurance policy and financial gains arising out of it are matters of speculative gain and the Company had never promised any confirmed returns on investments.  It is also further contended that the Company has strictly acted as per terms and conditions of the policy and returns on insurance policy are as per terms and conditions of the policy and the prevailing market value and further the Company is under no obligation to provide benefits at a certain rate.  The Ops also contended that Company provides risk on the life of the complainant during existence of the policy.  Thus denying any deficiency in service on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of his case.  The Ops also filed affidavit in support of their case.  We have perused the documents which are available on record.

4.                     In this case, Policy Vide Contract No.18130334 dt.31.10.2010 issued by the Ops for premium and policy term of 5 years and the money back from the end of 2^nd policy year are all admitted facts.  It is also an admitted fact that the policy closed on 31.10.2015 and the complainant has got back a total sum of Rs.5, 06,719.70 from the Ops against his total deposit of Rs.5, 02,042.50.  The case of the complainant is that the Ops collected Rs.2040/- extra ignoring the terms of the policy and he got Rs.4, 677.20 only as financial benefit on his 5 years of deposit.

5.                     The Ops stated that in the 2^nd years of the policy, Service Tax and Education Cess were increased by the Government on the premiums and hence the complainant had to pay some extra amount on his deposits.  Accordingly, on the deposit of 4 premiums, they have collected extra amount from the complainant.  It is seen that the Ops have not mention in their counter as to how much tax and cess was increased by the Government during the relevant period.  Before collection of extra amount on the premiums, the complainant was to be aware with sufficient evidence that they are going to collect some more amount on the premiums due to hike in tax and cess by the Government.  The Ops have failed to do so.

6.                     Further the case of the complainant is that after maturity he was not satisfied with the pay outs of the Ops and hence he submitted an application dt.07.11.2015 before OP.1 with grievance, a copy of which is available on record.  The OP.1 has received the said application with due endorsement but did not prefer to reply.  This is an utter negligence on the part of the Ops.

7.                     Further the complainant stated that the plan and policy taken by him was a traditional policy but on the other hand the Ops stated that the investment in the insurance plan is a speculative gain and depends upon market value.  It is seen that the Ops have not adduced just and proper evidence in support of their above contention.  In absence of any cogent evidence and supportive documents, we do not find any clarity in the pay outs made by the Ops in favour of the complainant.

8.                     In the above premises we find clear deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.  Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to re-assess the payouts of the Ops but due to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant is entitled for some compensation.  Further due to such inaction of the Ops, the complainant has come up with this case incurring some expenditure.  Considering the sufferings, we feel a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation and Rs.3000/- towards cost of litigation in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

9.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops being jointly and severally liable are directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation and Rs.3000/- towards costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

to dict.)