District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal

(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2^nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)

Telefax: (03522)-270013

Present          

Shri Sambhunath Chatterjee              - President

Miss. Swapna Saha                            - Member

Shri Siddhartha Ganguli                      - Member

Consumer Complaint No. 3/2015

Sri Ganesh Thakur

S/o Late Rameshwar Thakur

Vill.: Narayanpur (Nepalipara, Near Ratan Dey’s Rice Mill),

P.O. & P.S.: Balurghat,

Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur Pin- 733101 …………………Complainant(s)

V-E-R-S-U-S

1.   The Chief Manager,

      United Bank of India, ’UBI’

      Balurghat Branch, Congress Para,

      PO &PS: Balurghat,

      Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur. West Bengal, Pin-733101

2.   The Manager, TATA AIG Life Insurance Company Ltd.

      (now Known as TATA AIA Life Insurance Company Ltd.)

      (IRDA Regd.No.110),Corporate/Regd.Office-14^th Floor Tower A,

      Peninsula Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg,

      Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013, India.

3.   The Manager, TATA AIG Life Insurance Company Ltd.

      (now Known as TATA AIA Life Insurance Company Ltd.),

      2^nd Floor, Puspanjali Palace, Ramkrishnapally, NH 34,

      Malda-732101, West Bengal, India         ………Opposite Parties

Ld. Advocate(s)

For complainant                      ……………- Shri Debasish Karmakar

For OP No. 1                                      …………    - Shri Dibakar Bhattacharya

For OP Nos. 2 & 3                  …………    - Humayun Kabir

Date of Filing                                       : 06.01.2015

Date of Disposal                                 : 28.08.2015

Contd…P/2

Judgment & Order  dt. 28.08.2015

            The case of the complainant is that the OP Nos. 2 & 3 are running life insurance policy under the name and style of Tata AIG Life Insurance Company and OP No.1 is authorized agent of OP Nos. 2 & 3. The complainant took house building loan from OP No.1 at the time of obtaining loan a policy was opened being policy No. U147285607 on 26.5.2011 through UBI, Balurghat Branch (OP No.1).

            The complainant regularly paid installment of the policy through UBI, Balurghat Branch. In the month of April, 2014 the complainant went to the said bank for payment of installment of the insurance policy but the OP No. 1 refused to accept the installment.

            The complainant thereafter, requested the OP No.1 for several times to accept the premium of the policy but the OP No. 1 did not accept the same. Subsequently, a lawyer’s notice was sent and since no action was taken, a complaint was lodged before the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Dakshin Dinajpur, Balurghat and the said Assistant Director heard both the parties and but no fruitful result was achieved. As such the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the OP No. 1 to accept the insurance policy and also give necessary direction upon the OP Nos. 2 & 3 for revival of the insurance policy and also prayed for compensation.

            OP No. 1 filed a written version whereby the OP No. 1 denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was specifically stated that the OP No. 1 was a corporate agent of the insurance company and since the time period and validity of the MOU has expired between the Bank and Tata AIG, as such the OP No. 1 did not collect the premium from the policyholders. The policyholders may deposit the premium to

Contd…P/3

the branch office or at the head office (H.O.), though it was brought to the notice to the complainant but the complainant failed to understand the said fact made the allegations against the OP No. 1. In view of the said fact that OP No. 1 prayed for dismissal of the case.

            The OP Nos. 2 & 3 filed a written version. The OPs denied all the material allegations of the complaint. The OPs stated that there has been no deficiency in service on the part of OPs while dealing with the policy of the complainant. Policy of the complainant was lapsed as the complainant has failed or neglected to pay premiums for the next years, the OPs sent reminder through a letter and it was specifically stated that the complainant expressed his willingness to obtain a “Tata AIG Life Invest Assure Flexi Supreme Plan” from the OPs and he duly filled in and signed the proposal form on 16.5.2011 and the proposed annual premium payable was Rs.20,000/- for a period of 15 years. The said policy contract clearly explained the provision of the Free-Look period of 15 days, which allows the policy owner to return the policy, if it does not suit their requirement. Under the said policy the premium was to be paid for a period of 15 years. The complainant paid premium for the year 2013. The OP reminded the complainant that the premium payment for the said policy was due on 18.5.2014, in spite of receipt of such letter the complainant failed to pay the premium. Despite receiving of the letter the complainant did not pay the premium as such the policy was lapsed.

            It was specifically stated that as per terms and conditions of the said policy the proceeds of the discontinued policy has to be paid at the end of lock-in period of 5 years i.e. 18^th May, 2016 and discontinued policy means the surrender value (i.e. Total Fund Value as on that date, the policy discontinued, less the applicable discontinuance charges as on the date of discontinuation or complete withdrawal, whichever is earlier plus interest earned, subject to a minimum guarantee of the

Contd…P/4

interest, as applicable to savings bank accounts of SBI, over the period the policy is in discontinuation). In view of the said fact that the OP Nos. 2 &3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be determined :-

1. Whether the complainant is a policyholder under the OP Nos. 2 & 3?
2. Whether the complainant paid premium to OP No. 1?
3. Whether after information by OP No. 1 the complainant paid premium to the OP Nos. 2 & 3?  

4. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get full amount paid by him even after lapse of the policy?

5. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos. 2 & 3?

6. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get relief as prayed for?

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

            All the points are taken together since the points that will be discussed hereunder are inter-related with each other.

            The complainant has claimed that he obtained house building loan from OP No. 1 and at the time of taking loan an insurance policy of Tata AIG Life Insurance Company Ltd. was also taken and the complainant paid premium through OP No. 1 and the premium of the policy was paid for 3 (three) years commencing from the year of 2001 and continued up to 2013. While the complainant went to pay for payment for the year 2014, the OP No. 1 refused to accept. The complainant thereafter made several requests to OP No. 1 but OP No. 1 refused to accept by mentioning that since the agreement with the insurance company has expired and no further agreement was entered into between the OP Nos. 2 & 3. Thereafter the OP No. 1 refused to accept the premium of the said policy.

Contd…P/5

            Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submits that since the policy was opened at the instance of OP No. 1 and since there is no existence of Tata AIG at present therefore, the complainant made prayer in the complaint that money paid by the complainant to the OP No. 2 & 3 should be returned with interest. Though, in the prayer of the complaint it was mentioned that policy be revived but no such prayer was made at the time of argument. The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submits necessary direction be given to the OP No. 1 for compensate the loss sustained by the complainant. Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that since the existence of Tata AIG Life Insurance Company is doubtful therefore, no direction is to be given to the complainant for payment of premium of the policy.

            Ld. Lawyer for the Bank argued that at the time of opening policy by the complainant there was an agreement between the Bank and the insurer that the OPs can accept the premium on behalf of OP Nos. 2 & 3, but since the said agreement ended in the year 2013 therefore the OP No. 1 rightly refused to accept the premium though it was tendered by the complainant. Considering the said fact Ld. Lawyer for the OP No. 1 emphasized that in the said transaction OP No. 1 had no role to play and there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No. 1. Accordingly, the Ld. Lawyer emphasized that OP No. 1 cannot be held liable for lapse of the policy on the part of OP No. 1 i.e. UBI, Balurghat Branch.

            Ld. Lawyer for the OP Nos. 2 & 3 argued that the complainant is a policyholder under the OPs and the complainant paid premium up to year 2013. The OPs informed the complainant that if the complainant wants to pay the premium it can be paid directly to the company and several reminders were sent to the complainant but the complainant failed to pay the premium as a result of which the policy was lapsed. So far as the amount claimed by the complainant will be considered as per

Contd…P/6

 the terms and conditions of the policy. In case of lapsed policy an amount will be paid to the said policy i.e. the proceeds of the discontinued policy at the end of lock-in period of 5 years i.e. 18^th May, 2016 and the proceeds of the discontinued policy means the surrender value (i.e. Total Fund Value as on that date, the policy discontinued , less the applicable discontinuance charges as on the date of discontinuation or complete withdrawal, whichever is earlier) plus interest earned, subject to a minimum guarantee of the interest, as applicable to savings bank accounts of SBI, over the period the policy is in discontinuation. In support of the said contention the Ld. Lawyer for the OPs relied on documents filed by the OPs.

            Considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is admitted fact that the complainant obtained house building loan from the OP No. 1 and also it is admitted fact that a policy was opened by the complainant and the OP No. 1 accepted the premium from the year of 2011 to 2013. It is admitted fact that OP No. 1 refused to accept the premium of the said policy from the year 2014 and OP No. 1 clearly stated to the complainant that the premium cannot be accepted since the agreement between the Bank and the OP Nos. 2 & 3 has expired and the OP No. 1 asked the complainant to pay the premium amount directly to the OP Nos. 2 &3. From the said fact it is crystal clear that since the agreement expired between the OP No.1 and OP Nos. 2 & 3 therefore the OP No. 1 did not accept the premium of the said policy and the OPs rightly the said act and beforehand and informed the complainant to pay directly to the OP Nos. 2 & 3. Since the complainant did not abide by the said direction given by the Bank, therefore, we hold that OP No. 1 cannot be held responsible for any lapse committed by the OP No. 1. So far as the argument advanced by the OP Nos. 2 & 3 that since the policy was lapsed as per the terms and conditions of the lapse policy the amount will be returned to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the said policy, which was specifically

Contd…P/7

mentioned in the policy itself. Apart from the said fact that OP Nos. 2 & 3 from time to time informed the complainant to pay premium directly to them but the complainant emphasized on his point that since policy was opened and the initially the premiums were paid to the Bank, the bank should accept the premium and in such manner the complainant allowed the policy to lapse. Since in the policy agreement there is a stipulation as to how the amount is to be given to the lapse policyholder as per the said stipulation the complainant will be entitled to get the amount since Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that his client does not want to revive the said policy by payment of premium for the rest of period.

            Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that OP No. 1 cannot be held responsible for any lapse and the complainant does not want the revival of the policy and since the policy has lapsed as per stipulation in the policy agreement the complainant will be entitled to get the amount after the lock-in period of 5 years i.e. 18^th May, 2016 and surrender value (i.e. the total fund value as on that date, the policy discontinued, less the applicable discontinuance charges as on the date of discontinuation or complete withdrawal, whichever is earlier) plus interest as applicable to savings bank account holders of SBI, over the period the policy is in discontinuation. Thus, all the points are disposed of accordingly by holding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

             Hence, it is

                                                O R D E R E D

            that the instant petition of complaint CC No.3 of 2015 is allowed on contest in part.

            The complainant will be entitled to get back the amount at the end of lock-in period of 5 years i.e. 18^th May, 2016 and the proceeds of discontinued policy surrender value i.e. the total fund value as on that

Contd…P/8

 date, the policy discontinued, less the applicable discontinuance charges as on the date of discontinuation plus interest earned subject to minimum guarantee of the interest as applicable to savings bank accounts of SBI, over the period the policy is in discontinuation.

            Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.

Dictated & corrected

            ……Sd/….…………  

Sambhunath Chatterjee)       

            President                                

            We concur,

            ……Sd/..………...                                              ……Sd/………..

              ( S. Saha )                                                       S. Ganguli )

               Member                                                         Member

1. Date when free copy was issued                         ……………………
2. Date of application for certified copy       ……………………
3. Date when copy was made ready            ……………………
4. Date of delivery                                        ……………………

FREE COPY [Reg. 18(6)]

1. Mode of dispatch                                ……………………
2. Date of dispatch                                  ……………………

-x-