IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA

Dated this the 22^nd day of February, 2010.

Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)

Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)

C.C.No.134/05

Between:

Alexander Varghese,

Palliparampil House,

Thelliyoor.P.O., Vennikulam,

Pathanamthitta.                                                                                ......      Complainant

And:

1. The General Manager,

TATA AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

6thFloor, Peninsula Tower,

Peninsula Corporate Park,

Ganpatrao Kadam Marg,

Lower Parel (W), Mumbai.

2. The General Manager,

TATA AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

2^nd Floor Foto Fast House,

M.G. Road, Kochi – 682 035.

(By Adv. K.M. Alexander)

3. Jose. C. Abraham,

Agent Code No.000452920,

Kottakuzhickal House,

Thelliyoor.P.O., Thiruvalla.

Addl.4. GMAX Outsourcing Pvt. Ltd.,

               No.19/12, North Cresent Road,

               T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017,

               Rep. by its General Manager/Director.

Addl.5. Integrated Finance Co. Ltd.,

              Bethanya Buildings, 1^st Floor,

              Kumbanad – 689 547, Rep. by its-

              Manager/Director.                                                                        .....       Opposite parties.

O R D E R

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):

                        The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

                        2. The complainant’s case as per the complaint and proof affidavit can be summarised as follows:-  The complainant is working as a driver in KSRTC.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties represents TATA AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd.  4^th and 5^th opposite parties are the agents of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  The 3^rd opposite party is engaged in the business of canvassing business for 4^th and 5^th opposite parties and as such 3^rd opposite party is an agent of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  The 3^rd opposite party approached the complainant and his wife and narrated the features of the new policy introduced by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and assured that, as per the terms of the new policy introduced by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party only one premium is required for covering the risk of the insured’s life.  Believing the words of the 3^rd opposite party, the complainant took Mahalife policy for his daughter Jeena Susan Alex and his wife took Mahalife policy for her daughters Alex Sneha Rachel and Sheba Ann Alex on 21.12.2004.  The policy number is C 300657629, C 300657645, C 300657412 respectively.  Altogether they had paid Rs.15,000/- for 3 policies (Rs.5,000/- for each one policy).  However, the actual premium amount is only Rs.4,160/-, the 3^rd opposite party excessively collected Rs.2,520/- under the guise of the premium amount.  The application forms are filled by the 3^rd opposite party.  He did not even read out and explained the conditions of the policy.  Moreover, the complainant had deposited another Rs.15,000/- with 5^th opposite party as part of taking the policy of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  Later, the opposite parties demanded next premium from the complainant. The demand for the further premiums by the opposite parties is against the offer made by the 3^rd opposite party and the said demand is illegal.  So the complainant demanded the return of the premium already paid.  But the opposite parties have not yielded the demand of the complainant.  The above said acts of the opposite parties are unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.  The opposite parties are liable for the same.  Hence this complaint for realising a total amount of Rs.30,980/- with interest under various heads.

                        3. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed their respective version.  The gist of the version of all the opposite parties is as follows:-  The opposite parties denied the allegations of the complainant.  According to the opposite parties, the complaint is totally mis-conceived.  The complainant had chosen to take the policy under his own free will and it was an independent decision taken by the complainant.  The allegation in the complainant that the amount of Rs.4,160/- paid by the complainant towards the premium was the 1^st and final payment is false.  The said amount is the 1^st premium and the complainant was bound to remit the subsequent premiums.  The complainant was bound to comply the terms and conditions of the policy.  Mahalife policy taken out by the complainant does not contain any scheme or provision for making one time payment of premium.  Addl. 4^th and 5^th opposite parties are not connected with the transactions.  None of the opposite parties committed any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service.  With the above contentions, opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.

                        4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following point is raised for consideration:

                        Whether this complaint is allowable or not?

                        5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the proof affidavit and oral deposition of the PW1, DW1 and DW2 and Exts.A1 to A15 and B1 to B6.  After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.

                        6. Point No.1:-  The complainant’s case is that he and his wife took three policies of the opposite parties believing that they have to pay only one premium for the policy.  But later the opposite parties demanded further premiums for the policy.  The above said act of the opposite parties is against the offers made at the time of canvassing the policy and it is an unfair trade practice and the opposite parties are liable for the same.  In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant filed a proof affidavit and 15 documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 toA15.  Ext.A1 is a temporary receipt dated 20.12.04 issued by integrated finance company Ltd. in the name of the complainant.  Ext.A2 is the photocopy of 3 Demand Drafts dated 1.7.2003 of South Indian Bank for Rs. 4,160/- each issued in favour of TATA AIG Life Insurance Company.  Ext.A3, A4 and A5 are the official receipt for life insurance payment of Rs.4,160/- each issued by TATA AIG Life Insurance Company in favour of Sheba Ann Alex, Jeena Susan Alex and Alex Sneha Rachel respectively.  Ext.A6, A7 and A8 are the endorsement-dated 31.1.06 issued by TATA AIG.  Ext.A9 is the premium payment notice issued by TATA AIG in the name of Rachel Alex.  Ext.A10, A11 and A12 are the notices for premium payment issued by TATA AIG in the name of the policyholders of this case.  Ext.A13, A14 and A15 are the letters of TATA AIG intimating the policyholders that the toll-free facility was restored.  PW1 was cross-examined by the counsel of the opposite parties.

                        7. At the same time, the opposite parties contention is that the policy taken by the complainant is a life insurance policy and the payment of the premium of the policy is as usual and it is not a one time payment scheme and this complaint is totally a misconceived one.  The complainant had taken the policy with full knowledge and understanding about the policy.  Hence there is no unfair trade practice and they are not liable to the complainant.

                        8. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, the authorised representatives of 1, 2 and 3^rd opposite party filed a proof affidavit.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, the authorised representatives of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties was examined as DW1 and the 3^rd opposite party was examined as DW2 and 6 documents were filed by the opposite parties.  Out of the said documents, 4 documents were marked as Exts.B1 to B4 through DW1 and the remaining 2 documents were marked as Exts.B5 and B6 through DW2.  Ext.B1 is the policy, No. C 300657629, in the name of Jeena Susan Alex.  Ext.B2 is the policy, No. C 300657412, in the name of Sheba Ann Alex.  Ext.B3 is the policy, No. C 300657645, in the name of Alex Sneha Rachel.  Ext.B4 is the terms and conditions of Mahalife Plan Policy.  Ext.B5 is the authorisation letter in favour of DW1 executed by one P.R. Shenoy and Ext.B6 is the copy of resolution passed by the Board of Directors at its meeting held on 7^th June 2005 in Mumbai of TATA AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd. DW1 and DW2 were cross-examined by the counsel for the complainant.  Opposite parties 4 and 5 have not adduced any separate evidence.

                        9. On the basis of the averments and contentions of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record.  On a perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that there is no dispute regarding the issuance of the policy by the opposite parties.  The question to be decided is whether the premium paid by the complainant and his wife is the 1^st and final premium of the policy.  The parties have no dispute regarding the payment of Rs.12,480/-.  According to the complainant, the said amount is the first and final premium of the policies.  But according to the opposite parties, the payment made by the complainant is the 1^st premium.  On a perusal of Exts.B1 to B4 and the deposition of PW1 clearly shows that the amount paid by the complainant is the 1^st premium of the policy.  The complainant admitted that the signatures seen on Exts.B1, B2 and B3 were of himself and his wife.  The deposition of PW1 in his cross examination is as follows:-  Ext.B1- sâ 3w t]Pn Fsâ H¸v D­v. Ext.B1- sâ 4w t]Pn application form-  step 4- benefit and premium table- semi annual F¶v FgpXnb CS¯mWv 4,160 F¶v FgpXnbncn¡p¶Xv.   Application form- sâ last t]Pn Fsâ H¸v D­v. Ext.B1- sâ t]Pv 15#194; Fsâ H¸v D­v. Ext.B1- sâ 1w t]Pn mode of payment semi annual F¶v FgpXnbn«p­v.

                        10. The above said deposition shows that the premium paid by the complainant is the first premium and he has to pay the remaining premiums as per the policy conditions envisaged and accepted by the complainant.  Apart from this, the complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that the 3^rd opposite party made him to believe that he has to pay only one premium for the policy.  In the circumstances, we find no merits in this complaint and it has to be dismissed.

                        11. In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

                        Declared in the Open Forum on this the 22nd day of February, 2010.

                                                                                                                                (Sd/-)

                                                                                                                        Jacob Stephen,

                                                                                                                            (President)

Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member)                  :           (Sd/-)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)                    :           (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1    :  Alexander Varghese

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1       :  Temporary receipt dated 20.12.04 issued by the Addl. 5^th opposite party

               to the complainant

A2       :  Photocopy of the Demand Draft dated 1.7.05 for Rs.4,160/- of South

               Indian Bank Ltd.

A3, A4 & A5  :  Official receipts (3 in number) for Life Insurance Premium (duplicate)

A6, A7 & A8  :  Endorsements (3 in number) dated 31.1.2006 issued by TATA AIG

A9       :  Photocopy of the premium payment notice

A10, A11 & A12        :  Photocopy of the notices (3 in number) dated 9.10.06

                                       issued by TATA AIG

A13, A14 & A15        :  Letters (3 in number) dated 6.6.05 issued by TATA AIG   

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1   :  Murali Prasad. T.

DW2   :  Jose. C. Abraham.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: 

B1        :  Policy data of Jeena Susan Alex

B2        :  Policy data of Sheba Ann Alex

B3        :  Policy date of Alex Sneha Rachel

B4        :  Terms and Conditions of Mahalife Plan Policy

B5        :  Authorisation letter dated 24.7.08 executed by P.R. Shenoy,

                Company Secretary, TATA AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd. in favour of Murali 

               Prasad Thekkepatt

B6        :  Copy of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors at its meeting held on

               7.6.05 in Mumbai of TATA AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

                                                                                                                        (By Order)

                                                                                                               Senior Superintendent.

Copy to:-  (1) Alexander Varghese, Palliparampil House, Thelliyoor.P.O., Vennikulam,

                      Pathanamthitta.                                             

(2)   The General Manager, TATA AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

            6thFloor, Peninsula Tower, Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadam    

            Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai.

(3)   The General Manager, TATA AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 2^nd Floor Foto  

      Fast House, M.G. Road, Kochi – 682 035.

(4)   Jose. C. Abraham, Agent Code No.000452920, Kottakuzhickal House,

            Thelliyoor.P.O., Thiruvalla.

(5)   General Manager/Director, GMAX Outsourcing Pvt. Ltd., No.19/12, 

      North Cresent Road, T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.

(6)   Manager/Director, Integrated Finance Co. Ltd., Bethanya Buildings,

                        1^st Floor, Kumbanad – 689 547.

                   (7) The Stock File.