Date of Filing: 21.03.2014 Date of Final Order: 06.11.2015
The brief facts of the present case, as culled out from the record is that the Complainant, Nikhil Chandra Dey purchased a Policy being No.745573253 by depositing Rs.47,600/- from the O.P. No.1, The Branch Manager, Peerless Developers Ltd., Cooch Behar Branch and the O.P. No.2, The Service Manager, Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (The O.P. No.1 is the Corporate Agent of the O.P. No.2). After taking the said policy, the Complainant regularly paid premium within due time. The cause of action of the present complaint arose on 27/09/2012 when the O.P by sending a copy of letter along with cheque amount of Rs.13,600/- had refunded to the Complainant due to an inadvertent system error. The O.Ps in connivance with each other with a view to deprive the Complainant from his legitimate claim illegally repudiate the said policy. By such act of omission and commission and by not settling the claim under the policy in question, the Complainant suffered mental pain & agony and the Complainant is also entitled to get the amount under the said policy. The O.Ps also adopted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Hence, the Complainant filed the present case praying for issuing a direction upon the O.Ps to pay (i) Returned back the amount of the said policy of Rs.47,600/- with 18% interest P.A, (ii) Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental pain & agony, (iii) Rs.50,000/- for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, and (iv) Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deem fit, as per law & equity.
It appears that after due service of Notice upon the O.P. No.1, The Branch Manager, Peerless Developers Ltd., Cooch Behar Branch, he appeared and prayed for written version but thereafter backed out from the case.
The O.P. No.2, The Service Manager, Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. has contested the case by filing written version denying all material allegation of the complaint contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action to bring the case. The main contention of the O.P. No.2 is that this O.P being a customer centric organization, had filed a settlement application in the present case thereby offering as an exception to reinstate the said policy being No.745573253 if the Complainant agreed to deposit Rs.13,600/- which had been refunded to the Complainant by this answering O.P. The O.P further stated that the Complainant could surrender the policy in case he wishes to do so as per the policy terms and conditions, post reinstatement of the said policy. However, the O.P has been informed that the Complainant is not willing to settle the matter despite the fact that the Complainant in its complaint before this Forum was praying for reinstatement/revival of the policy. With reference to the letter dated 27/09/2012, it was submitted by the O.P. No.2 that the said letter along with cheque amount of Rs.13,600/- had been refunded to the Complainant due to an inadvertent system error.
The O.P. No.2 further contended that the Complainant paid premiums from the date of insurance of the policy i.e. from 19/06/2009 till September, 2011. Thereafter, the Complainant failed to pay subsequent premiums due to which the subject policy attained the lapsed status. After that the O.P premium renewal intimation notices dated 12/02/2013, 19/03/2013 and 31/03/2013 with intimating that the policy has lapsed was also sent. However, despite having received the said letters, the Complainant failed to reinstate the policy. Hence, the request of the Complainant to surrender the policy could not be entertained which is in consonance with the terms and conditions of the subject policy. The O.P further stated that if the Complainant was not satisfied with any of the terms and conditions, he could have sought cancellation the policy within 15 days i.e. under the “Freelook period”. However, the Complainant failed to avail the same. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. No.2.
Ultimately, this answering O.P prayed for dismissal of the case with costs.
In the light of the contention of the complainant, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, perused the entire documents in the record and also heard the argument by the parties.
Point No.1.
During hearing of argument, the Ld. Agent/Adv. of the O.P submitted that the Complainant is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and drew our attention to Para 6 of their written argument where it has been noted that the Hon’ble National Commission in Ram Lal Aggarwalla versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. & Ors vide Judgement dated 23/04/2013 observed that policies which involve speculative gains through trading in shares in the stock market are commercial in nature. Hence, a consumer complaint for any grievance regarding such policies would not be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. In the same case, the Hon’ble National Commission had also held that “the investment made by the Complainant/Petitioner was to gain profit”. Since, it was invested for a commercial purpose; the Petitioner/Complainant shall not come within the ambit of ‘Consumer’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Similarly, in the case of “Smt. Abanti Kumari Sahoo Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.” the State Commission, Odisha First Appeal No.162/2010 held that the money of the Petitioner/Complainant invested in the share market is no doubt a speculative gain and speculative investment does not come under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
But no such rulings was produced before the Forum to examine ratio of the said cases and ascertain whether facts of the said cases are applicable to the present case or not.
It is the case of the O.P that by the policy in question, the Complainant made investment in share market for speculative gain and investment. But there is nothing to show that actually investment was made in share market.
In the case in hand, Complainant obtained a policy from the O.P. No.1. The Complainant paid premium for the said policy and the O.Ps issued a policy certificate in favour of the Complainant. Thus, the relation between the O.Ps and the Complainant so established from the record we are in view that the Complainant is the Consumer of the O.Ps.
Point No.2.
The O.P. No.1, The Branch Manager, Peerless Developers Ltd., has office at Cooch Behar. So, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try the case.
Total valuation of the present case Rs.1,57,600/- which is far less than the maximum limit i.e. Rs.20,00,000/- for which this Forum has pecuniary as well as territorial jurisdiction to try the case.
Point No.3 & 4.
Both these points are taken up further together for convenience of discussion.
Admittedly, the Complainant Nikhil Chandra Dey obtained a Max Life Insurance Policy bearing Policy No.745573253 with monthly premium of Rs.1,700/-.
It is the case of the O.P that since October, 2011, the Complainant has not been paying monthly premium. But receipts show that the Complainant has paid premium up to 29/06/2012.
We find that it is the main contention of the Complainant that the O.Ps have refused to revive his Policy illegally. But we find that by filing a petition dated 10/06/2014, the O.P No.2 prayed for settlement of the case by offering as an exception to reinstate the said policy bearing No.745573253 if Complainant agreed to deposit Rs.13,600/- only with answering respondent which had been refunded to the Complainant by answering respondent. Further, it is also recommended that the Complainant could surrender the Policy in case he wishes to do so as per the policy terms and conditions, post reinstatement of the said policy.
By filing a petition dated 24/08/2015, the Complainant submitted that he was not willing to compromise the case with O.P No.2.
However, we find that the claim of the Complainant is that the O.Ps did not revive his Policy and the O.P No.2 by filing petition dated 10/06/2014 submitted that they are ready to reinstate said Policy if the Complainant is agreed to pay Rs.13,600/-.
Copy of the letter dated 27/09/2012 reveals that the O.P No.2, Max LIC informed the Complainant that they are unable to revive his Policy and they are refunding unallocated amount of Rs.13,600/- lying in his Policy Account and the cheque will be dispatched shortly.
There is nothing to show that said cheque of Rs.13,600/- was issued to the Complainant.
But letter dated 20/10/2014 sent by the O.P No.2, Max LIC to the Complainant and copy of the cheque dated 20/10/2014 show that the cheque of Rs.16,192.53 was sent to the Complainant.
We find that the Complainant has already received disputed amount of Rs.13,600/- from the O.P No.2 and if he deposits said amount of Rs.13,600/- to the O.P No.2 then the entire dispute may be solved subject to the payment of compensation and he will not be prejudiced in any way..
In their W/V, the O.P No.2 claimed that said amount of Rs.13,600/- was refunded to the Complainant due to an inadvertent system error.
In view of our above made discussion it is clear that admittedly there was some fault on the part of the O.P. No.2, which can be treated as deficiency in service and the Complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.30,000/- against the O.P. No.2.
Regarding the O.P. No.1, the Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1.
Thus, both points are decided in favour of the Complainant.
Accordingly, the case succeeds in part.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered,
That the present Case No. DF - 18/2014 be and the same is allowed on contest but in part with costs of Rs.5,000/- against the O.P. No.2, The Service Manager, Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and dismissed on Ex-parte without any costs against the O.P. No.1, The Branch Manager, Peerless Developers Ltd., Cooch Behar Branch. The O.P. No.2 is also directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the Complainant, Nikhil Chandra Dey for mental pain & agony and deficiency in service.
The Complainant, Nikhil Chandra Dey is directed to deposit Rs.13,600/- to the O.P. No.2, The Service Manager, Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. within 30 days from this day and to submit documents required by the O.P. No.2. The O.P. No.2 is further directed to revive the said policy in question within 15 days after receiving the said money and documents. The Complainant is liberty to surrender the said policy and get all benefits as per terms and conditions of the policy.
The ordered amount shall pay to the Complainant by the O.P. No.2 within 45 days failure of which the O.P. No.2 shall have to pay Rs.100/- for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the “State Consumer Welfare Fund”, West Bengal.
Let plain copy of this Final Order be supplied, free of cost, to the concerned parties/Ld. Advocate by hand/be sent under Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
President President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
