West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/21/2013

Shiv Shambhu Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, TATA AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

04 Mar 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

                    Complaint case No.  21/2013                                                         Date of disposal: 04/03/2014                               

                    BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                                         MEMBER :                                                                    

                                                                          MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.     

  

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. M. K. Chowdhury, Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. D. Maity, Advocate.                                   

          

 Shiv Shambhu Sharma   S/o. Lt Rambilash Sharma, of 24/4 BR BNNPL, Township, P.O. 

 RBNM, P.S. Salboni, Dist. Paschim Medinipur……………Complainant.

                                                                                      Vs.

1. The Branch Manager, TATA AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Kharagpur Branch Office at Inda, Dist- Paschim Medinipur
2. India Infoline Insurance Brokers Ltd., Regd Office at IIFL House, Sun Infotech Park, Road No.16V, Plot No.-B-23, MIDC, Thane Industrial Area, Wagle Estate Thane-400604, Maharashtra…………………… ……………Ops.

Case of the complainant Shiv Shambhu Sharma in short is that he purchased a policy at 11,000/-( Eleven thousand) only under the assurance that after 5 (five) years the payment will be converted into 2,00,000/- (Two laks) only and the same will be increased 5 times in 15 years by virtue of annual premium   of 1,00,000/-(One laks) only for next 5 years under the policy of TATA AIG MAHA GURANTEE SCHEME.

But subsequently the complaint was shocked after knowing that he was cheated. Then on his request Op. assured the complainant to return the aforesaid amount. But infact, there will be a condition for completion of 15 years after payment of 1^st premium. Being aggrieved by such undisclosed condition, the complainant has come before us with prayer for refund of the policy premium with litigation cost of 5,000/-(Five thousand) only.

Op contested the case by filing written objection challenging that the case should be dismissed for want of cause of action on the ground that there was a free look period of 15 days for    cancellation of the policy on the part of the complainant under IRDA regulations.

Contd……P/2

 

                                                                                                               - ( 2 ) -

Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed :-

Issues :-

1. Whether case is maintainable in his present Form ?
2. Whether the complainant has any cause of action for seeking relief as prayed for ?
3. What other relets the complainant is entitled to ?

                                                  

                                               Decision with reasons :

Issues : 1 to 3.

All the issues are taken up for discussion. Ld. Advocate made his argument for the complainant that the agent of the Op. misguided the complainant in purchasing their policy for unlawful gain the terms and condition in respect of the policy were not disclosed at the times of purchasing policy. After laps of time alleged free look period, if was made clear to the complainant that there will be no refund of the money paid by the complainant. Rather the complainant is asked for serving completion of the entries 15 days. Thus by practicing unfair trade means the Op deprive the complainant. Thus the Forum should pass necessary order for refund of the premium with litigation cost.

Ld. Advocate for the Op on the other hand made his reply that according to the company rules, there is no provision for refund of the policy premium at any time before completion of the complete period i.e. 15 years. Thus there is no case infavour of the complainant and as such the case should be dismissed.

We have carefully considered the case of both parties including their documentary evidence admitting each other and it appears particularly on the face of the application form that the complainant has already furnished all items and column and by there knowing every thing as regard to the policy, made his deposit. So we do not find any scope to accept the plea of misguidance made from the end of the Op. As a result it is held and decided that there is no cause of action in filing the case agent the Op. Therefore the prayer made by the complainant can not be granted in his favour.

                             Hence,

                                         Ordered,

                                                          that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.

Dic. & Corrected by me

              

         President                                             Member                                                 President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                                           Paschim Medinipur.