This C.C. is coming before us for final hearing, in the presence of Sri. G. Satya Prasad, Advocate for Complainant, and in the presence of Sri. K.P. Satya-narayana Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Sri R. Hari Prasad, Advocate for the opposite party No.2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)
This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the father of one K.Ramesh Kumar, who is presently residing at Canada. When he was in India, the opposite party No.2 approached the complainant on 07-02-2007 as an agent to the opposite party No.1 and requested to join in insurance policy in the name of son of the complainant for a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- and on behalf of him, the complainant had paid Rs.20,000/- towards premium through opposite party No.2 and after submitting the proposal form for policy of Rs.40,00,000/-, the complainant’s son left to Canada on employment. In the last week of February 2007, the son of the complainant had informed to the opposite party No.2 that he unable to pay any more amounts for policy due to financial problems and requested to withdraw the policy proposals and refund the deposited amount of Rs.20,000/- to his father and on receipt of the same, the opposite party No.2 and the development officer of opposite party No.1 approached the complainant at his residence and requested, not to withdraw the proposal. But again the complainant requested them to refund the amount, which was paid by him and after that the complainant and his son submitted the refund proposal application to the opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2. Despite refunding the deposited amount, the opposite party No.1 sent the policy bond through opposite party No.2 in the month of September 2007 for a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- vide policy bearing No.687930964. The complainant further submitted that the opposite parties changed the policy amount from Rs.40,00,000/- to 3,60,000/- without giving any written consent from his son. The complainant further submitted that the opposite party No.2 had submitted the written consent with forgery signatures of his son. The complainant had also represented the opposite party No.1 on 18-10-2007 by submitting written representation for cancellation of Policy and requested to refund the premium amount, paid by him and also requested to take action against opposite party No.2 but there is no response to take action against opposite party No.1, it amounts to deficiency of service and having no other alternatives, approached the Forum by praying to direct the opposite party No.1 to refund the deposited amount of Rs.20,000/- together with interest @24% p.a. from the date of deposit and to return the documents i.e. policy reduction letter, good health statement of son of the complainant and to award Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages and costs.
2. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit and also filed the following documents, which are marked as exhibits.
Ex.A1:- Photo copy of proposal deposit receipt for Rs.20,000/-.
Ex.A2:- Attested copy of letter dated 17-05-2007 addressed by son
of the complainant
Ex.A3:- Attested copy of policy.
Ex.A4:- Attested copy of letter dated 18-10-2007, addressed by the
complainant to the opposite party No.1
3. On being noticed, the opposite parties appeared through their counsels and filed counters by denying the averments made in the complaint.
In the counter, the opposite party No.1 admitted that the son of the complainant had paid Rs.20,000/- towards proposal deposit on his own life vide BOC. No.24330 on 07-02-2007 and denied the other averments by submitting that they did not receive any representation for refund of deposited amount towards premium before completion of policy particulars and also submitted that they have issued the policy for an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- after fulfillment of all requirements and after receipt of consent letter of K.Ramesh Kumar through opposite party No.2 and also submitted that they did not receive any letter with regard to the refund of deposited amount. The opposite party No.1 further contended that as per regulations of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority under regulation No.6(1), if the policy holder can surrender the policy bond within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy bond and claim the refund of money paid by him, but the complainant did not do so and the letter dated 17-05-2007 as alleged by the complainant, was not received by them and the complainant did not utilize his right to claim the refund of deposited amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of policy i.e. the policy was received by the complainant in the month of September 2007 and failed to claim the amount within prescribed time, he submitted a written representation on 18-10-2007 i.e. after lapse of 15 days from the date of receipt of policy, as such there is no deficiency on the part of them and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. The opposite party No.2 filed its counter by mentioning that the son of the complainant had paid Rs.20,000/- to the opposite party No.1 with intend to obtain insurance policy through opposite party No.2, who is the agent to the opposite party No.1 and also admitted that the son of the complainant had submitted the proposal form for a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- for approval of opposite party No.1 and during the pendency of approval of proposal, the son of the complainant had submitted a consent letter to the opposite party No.1 by requesting to reduce the sum assured from Rs.40,00,000/- to Rs.3,60,000/- due to personal reasons, in view of the above said letter, the opposite party No.1 accepted the same and issued policy bearing No.687930964 in favour of Sri K.Ramesh Kumar for a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- and the same was acknowledged by the complainant on 21-07-2007 through opposite party No.2 and also submitted that the opposite parties never received any oral or written representations from son of the complainant for refund of Rs.20,000/- by canceling the proposal, made by him and the letter dated 17-05-2007, addressed by son of the complainant is false and fictitious and never made any representation for cancellation of proposal before acceptance of policy or after receipt of policy bond i.e. within 15 days from the date of receipt of policy, he had only submitted a written representation dated 18-10-2007 for refund of Rs.20,000/- by canceling the insurance policy, as such there is no deficiency and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. The opposite party No.1 filed a memo by submitting to treat the averments of its counter as written arguments.
6. In view of the above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,
Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
Point:
It is an admitted fact that the son of the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- on 07-02-2007 towards insurance premium amount for obtaining the insurance policy on his own life from the opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2, the dispute is with regard to the cancellation of policy and refund of deposited amount of Rs.20,000/- even after submission of written representation of son of the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that after submitting the proposal form to the opposite party No.1, his son went to Canada on employment but due to some financial problems, he intended to withdraw from the policy proposals, requested the opposite party No.2 in the last week of February 2007, to refund the deposited amount of Rs.20,000/- to his father and submitted refund proposal application to the opposite party No.2 and the Development Officer of opposite party No.1 and also posted a copy of application directly to the opposite party No.1. Instead of refunding the deposited amount, sent the policy bond for a sum assured @Rs.3,60,000/- vide policy bearing No.687930964 it amounts to deficiency of service and prayed for redressal. On the other hand the opposite parties denied the averments that they never received any cancellation of proposal prior to policy and after issuance of policy within prescribed time. But in support of his averments the complainant filed Exs.A1 to A4. According to Ex.A2, the son of the complainant had submitted a written representation to the opposite party No.1 on 17-05-2007 by submitting that he is unable to make any payments for the policy and requested to return the deposited amount of Rs.20,000/- to his father but did not file any proof regarding the receipt of said letter to the opposite party No.1 or any endorsement of authorities, concerned to that effect and did not file any proof regarding the receiving of consent for cancellation of policy and even did not clarify, what steps taken by the complainant for cancellation and for refund of deposited amount either prior to receipt of policy bond or after receipt of the same within prescribed time i.e. within 15days from the date of receipt of the policy and after receipt of Ex.A3, which is the policy bond dated 07-06-2007, the complainant made a written representation to the opposite party No.1 on 18-10-2007, which is evidenced under Ex.A4, requesting to cancel the policy in the name of his son and refund the premium amount, which was deposited by him, which clearly shows that the complainant had submitted a written representation for cancellation only after lapse of nearly 4 months from the date of receipt of policy bond, as such the allegation made by the complainant with regard to the non refund of deposited amount even after receipt of cancellation letter is not sustainable and with regard to the forgery of written consent and signatures of son of the complainant by the opposite party No.2 is concerned, if there is any forgery committed by opposite party No.2, the matter can not be adjudicated by this forum as this Forum can adjudicate the matter of summary trial. As such the point is answered accordingly by holding that the complainant is at liberty to claim the return of documents as prayed if necessary.
7. In the result, the C.C. is disposed of. The complainant is at liberty to claim the return of documents as prayed if necessary. There is no order as to costs.
Typed my dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on this 12th day of August, 2010.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for complainant: -None-
Witnesses examined for opposite parties: -None-
Exhibits marked for complainant:
Ex.A1:- Photo copy of proposal deposit receipt for Rs.20,000/-.
Ex.A2:- Attested copy of letter dated 17-05-2007 addressed by son
of the complainant
Ex.A3:- Attested copy of policy.
Ex.A4:- Attested copy of letter dated 18-10-2007, addressed by the
complainant to the opposite party No.1
Exhibits marked for opposite parties:
-Nil-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM
