THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL    

                 COMMISSION, AT MADIKERI, KODAGU

          Dated this the 26^thday of November,2021

PRESENT

SRI . PRAKASHA K.                                   : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI. B.NIRMAL KUMAR                            : HON’BLE MEMBER

SRI. C.RENUKAMBHA                               : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDERS IN

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.51/2020

(Admitted on:18.12.2020)

N.D Nanjappa,

S/o Late N.A Devaiah,

R/o. Kodagarahalli village and Post,

Via Suntikoppa, Kodagu.

Karnataka-571237

(Advocate for the Complainant: K.A.R)

…..Complainant

VERSUS

1.     The  Manager,

        Canara Bank,

        (working partner  with Canara HSBC,

        OBC Life Insurance)

        Shuntikoppa  Branch,

        Somwarpet Taluk. Kodagu District

        Karnataka State.

2.     The  Authorised  person

        Canara HDFC Life, head office

        Unit No.208, 2^nd  Floor, Kanchejunga Building

        18 Barakhamba  Road, New Delhi-110001.

(Opposite Party No.1 :A.R.S)

(Opposite Party No 2 : D.K.R)      ……………. Opposite Parties

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI .PRAKASHA K.

1.       This complaint is filed under section 35  of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 Act seeking direction to Respondent return of deposit of Rs. 25,00,000/ under policy  no.0109438213 held with  Respondent and notice  charge of Rs.5,000/- cost of the proceedings Rs.5,000/- and  pain sufferance , valuable time spent and other reasonable efforts taken  by the Complainant and monetary loss  in terms of money is considered  it amount to hardly  Rs. 50,000/- in all  together  an amount of  Rs.25,60,000/-.

2.      The brief facts of the case are as under:

It is the  case of the Complainant  that, he is the  customer of the Opposite Party bank, as such the  Complainant  is a age  old person  he is  residing  in the above cause title  address , he  along with  his age old wife  and nearer to 100 years of age mother, apart from these three he do not  have any children , to take   care  of  them or his  family.    

3.     It is further case of the Complainant   that, for his old age he had a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- which were due to the falsified narrations invested in wrong policy bearing No.0109438213.  The Complainant was fully misguided by the respondent No.1 for his own cause.  The Complainant never ever knew the policy details.  Policy issued on 03.07.2020.

4.     It is further case of the Complainant   that, due to the age factor Complainant for his medical treatment that to in this epidemic Covid-19 disaster sought for the money.  The respondent No.1 deviated the Complainant that, the amount under this policy is locked for 3 years and later on he changes his version to 5 years,   but nowhere in the policy is no such locking period mentioned, but on the other hand  Respondent  deducted certain amount from the Complainant round up money.

5.     It is further case of the  Complainant  that,  in this regard he raised objections and sought for his hard earned only source of money which is held up interest he wrong hands of respondents.

6.     It is the further case of the  Complainant  that, the Complainant without any other alternative issued notice to the respondents  on 04.11.2020 calling upon to return policy fixed amount of Rs.25,00,000/- within 15 days of receipt of the notice.  The respondents after receipt of the notice only assured the Complainant by SMS to his mobile number.

7.     It is the further case of the Complainant  that, the respondents are only dragging the time. Hence, he submits that, without any other alternative as a consumer before this Commission seeking justice.

8.  After service of notice to Opposite Party no.1&2,  Opposite Party No.1&2  appeared  through their counsel  and   Opposite Party no.1 filed  the version as under:-

        They denied that, they are working partner with Canara HSBC OBC Life Insurance. However, they admit that the complaint is their customer they denied that, Complainant  is a age old person  or his  wife is old aged and they are not aware that the Complainant  is  residing  with  his  aged mother  who is  nearing 100 years.

9. However Opposite Party No. 1 admitted that,  the Complainant  has invested 25,00,000/- with  2^nd Respondent through Insurance Policy.  However they denied that Complainant   has invested the said amount  due to the  falsified and  narrations of the  Respondents.  Further they denied that the Complainant  was  fully misguided by them for his own cause. They denied that the Complainant   never  ever  knew the policy  details.  It further contends that policy issued on  03.07.020 does not convey any meaning.

10.    Opposite Party No.1 further denied that, due to the age factor for  medical treatment, that too during the  epidemic  Cavoid-19 disaster period Complainant   sought for money and they  deviated the Complainant  that  the amount  under policy is  locked for 3 years  or   that later  on he changed his version  to 5 years.  But Opposite Party No.1 contends that  nowhere in the policy is no such locking period mentioned  but on the other hand  Opposite Party deducted certain  huge amount  from  the Complainant  round  up money conveyed  no meaning  whatsoever. They further denied the Complainant  in this regard  raised objection or sought for his  earned only  sourced money which is  held up  in the wrong  hands  of Opposite Parties.  

11.    They contends that, that the Complainant   himself approached them  and  shown  inclination  to invest in the Insurance Policy  of the Opposite Party No.2.  

12.    They further contends that Opposite Party No.1 is just a facilitator   between the Complainant  and Opposite Party No.2. They further contends that, the Complainant  has  paid  the premium amount  through  this  Respondent as  evidenced  through  the transaction slip dated  15.06.2020 and  as per the said  document, it is  evident  that  the Complainant  has  opted   for the  said policy of his life  plan.

13.    Opposite Party No.1 further contends that, the Complainant  himself  submitted  duly filled online proposal form and has  paid  the insurance  premium  of Rs. 25,00,00/- against  the death  benefits of the said  amount  and accordingly   Opposite Party No.2  has issued  policy in favour of  the Complainant. As per the terms and  conditions of  the said  policy. Opposite Party No.2   agreed to pay  a monthly amount  of Rs. 12,736.73 to the Complainant   as monthly  annuity benefit and the same is  promptly  being paid to the Complainant   and the same shall be paid  throughout  the life time of the Complainant  and upon his death, the  same  shall be payable to the nominee.

14.    They further contends that, the policy of the Complainant  is under  force and as per the policy, there is  no scope  for the  closure of the  policy. They  further contends that ,in any scenario   the Complainant   is not  entitled  for any  amount from their  side.  Therefore  Opposite Party No.1 prays for dismissal of the  above complaint with cost.

15.    Opposite Party no.2 filed the version as under:-

        They contends that in the proposal form  there was a column wherein  the Complainant  had opted for immediately annuity plan with  return of purchase  price. They  contends that  Complainant  paid  the purchase  price of Rs. 25,00,000/- and  in lieu  of which  the Complainant  will get  Rs. 12,736.73/- as monthly  annuity benefit and said  Annuity  amount is payable , throughout  the life of the Complainant  and upon  death of he Complainant  / life  assured  the purchase price as  mentioned  above shall be payable by the company to the  nominee under the policy and policy will terminate per  its agreed  terms and condition.

16.    Opposite Party No.2 further contends that, since the proposal form  was  filled  electronically: the  Complainant  had  signed the addendum to the proposal form  after  being explained  about the contents of such  proposal form.  They further contends that no prudent person would have signed any document without understanding the intricacies  of the same.

17.    They further contends that  the  DLA was duly informed  on the features of the plan at the  proposal stage and he had  signed and agreed to the “Declaration” under the Addendum that he ratifies and confirms the submission of the   proposal form  which is  filled electronically  in face to face interaction with  the sales person and the policy plan is selected after  undergoing customized need analysis  as per Financial Need  assessment  form, thereby  declaring  that he had  read and understood all the features of the policy and that all the facts mentioned in the proposal form  are true, correct and complete in  all respect.

18.    Opposite Party No.2 further contends that  the Complainant  has miserably  failed to demonstrate any deficiency in service nor  has attributed  any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or  inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance: which  is required to be maintained  in pursuance of a contract.  Opposite Party No. 2 further contends that  in the present case, the Complainant  opted for two policies i.e. 0109300617 & 0109438213.  Opposite Party No. Further contends that  the Complainant  raised his grievance under policy 0109300617 within the freelook period  therefore the said policy was cancelled and the premium was refunded.  They further contends that  the Complainant  did not  raise any  grievance with regard to policy number 0109438213 and  agreed  to  continue with the said policy.  Therefore the policy number 0109438213 continued.  Thus  there is no deficiency in service on the part of  the answering  Opposite Party  while rendering  services to  the Life Assured nor were the answering  Opposite Party indulged into any  unfair  trade practise while rejecting the claim. Therefore  Opposite Party No.2 prays for dismissal of the complaint   with cost.  

19.    We have heard the arguments on both sides and perused the concerned documents and records.  In this case  Complainant has filed his  examination in chief by way of affidavit and his evidence  considered as  CW-1.  Complainant also produced 10 documents. Which are marked as Ex1 to ExP.10.  Manger legal and a authorised representative of the Opposite Party No.2 also filed  his   examination in chief by way of affidavit and his evidence considered as RW-1.  Opposite Party also furnished 3 documents which are marked as ExR1 to ExR3.

20.    In view of the above said facts, the points that arise for our consideration in the case are:

          (1) Whether the Complainant proves that          

                there  is deficiency in service on the  

                part  of Opposite Party 1&2 ?

 (2)  Whether the Complainant is 

        entitled to get reliefs as prayed for?

 (3)  What order?

21.

21.     We have considered the arguments submitted by the party and also considered the materials that, placed before the Commission and answered the points are as follows:

        Point No.(1) :  In the affirmative

        Point No.(2) :  In the  affirmative   

        Point No.(3) :  As per the final order.

REASONS

Point No. 1&2:

22.    In this case Opposite Party admitted that Complainant  has invested 25,00,000/-with 2^ndRespondent through Insurance policy. Opposite Party No.2 specifically contends that, since the proposal form was filled electronically the Complainant  had signed addendum  to the proposal form after being explained about the contents of such  proposal form and no prudent person would have signed any document  without understanding the intricacies of the same. Further Opposite Party also stated that as per the  terms and conditions of the policy the Complainant  was provided a free look  period of 15  days from the date of receipt of the policy  to cancel the policy in case there is any discrepancies in the policy.   They further submit that  the  answering Opposite Party as per clause 4(1) and 6(2) of the IRDA (Protection of Policy  Holder’s  Interest)  regulations,2002 sent the policy and policy document along with the copy of the proposal form to the Complainant   giving him an opportunity  to review / cancel the policy  within  freelook period  and  the present  case, the policy documents were dispatched  on 03.07.2020 to the registered address  of the  Complainant  through speed post via  airway bill no.EH707563022INand the same was  received  by the  Complainant  on 16.07.2020  and  the Complainant   approached  the company within freelook  period with  regard  to policy  number 0109300617 which was  cancelled  and  agreed to continue  with the policy 0109438213 which is the  subject matter of the present  complaint  and Opposite Party 2 submits that  this itself  creates  doubt on genuineness of the  present complaint.  therefore  Opposite Party no.2 submits that  Complainant  is now stopped  from raising any grievance  or issue relating  to the  policy or seek refund of the  premium paid  under the  policy and  the Complainant  is bound by the  policy contract and is  deemed to have given-up/ waived  his rights by not exercising  the  freelook provision within stipulated time period.

23.    Admittedly Complainant  is a senior citizen at the time of filing of this complaint who was aged about 71 years.  Further in the complaint  and evidence Complainant  states that he never ever knew  the policy details.  Further he has no issue.  Further Complainant  himself submitted before this commission that if the invested money returned  after his death no purpose would survive. 

24.    In this case  on perusal of case records it also appears that the recently on 22.09.2021 Opposite Party also return one letter to the Complainant and said letter is marked as ExC.10. In ExC.10 Opposite Party specifically stated  which read like this,

“We strive  to ensure that  our customers get the very  best  service from us.  We will investigate your grievance and try to  resolve within 15 days from the  date of  our  receiving the complaint.” 

Thus  ExC.10  issued by Opposite Party only after filing of the above  complaint  and in ExC.10 Opposite Party specifically stated that  they will investigate grievance of the Complainant and resolve within 15 days  from  the date of they  receiving the Complaint.  In this case, doubt would also arise whether the Complainant  had signed the Addendum to the proposal form  after being explained about the contents of such proposal form.  Thus at this stage  if the invested money not returned to the Complainant then the great injustice would be caused to him.  In other words he cannot eat the fruits of his hard earned money at the end of his life.  However Opposite Party failed to return the invested money to the Complainant.   Accordingly Opposite Parties committed  deficiency of service.  Thereby point no.1 answered in the affirmative.

25.     In this case we have already opined that Opposite Parties committed  deficiency in service.  Thereby Complainant  get relief as prayed for.  Accordingly point no.2 answered in  affirmative. 

Point No.3

26.     In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

          The complaint filed by the Complainant under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 is  allowed.

        Opposite Party No.2 shall  return the deposited amount of Rs 25,00,000/- under policy no 01094382138 to the Complainant  within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

        Opposite Party shall also pay cost and compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant.  In case Opposite Parties  failed to pay deposited amount of Rs.25,00,000/-within prescribed time then they shall pay interest at 7%p.a on the said amount from the date of order till realisation.

    Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Page No.1 to 17 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open Commission on this the 26^th day of November, 2021)

                                ANNEXTURE

    Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – N.D. Nanjappa (Complainant)

Documents marked on behalf of the complainant  

     THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL    

                 COMMISSION, AT MADIKERI, KODAGU

          Dated this the 26^thday of November,2021

PRESENT

SRI . PRAKASHA K.                                   : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI. B.NIRMAL KUMAR                            : HON’BLE MEMBER

SRI. C.RENUKAMBHA                               : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDERS IN

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.51/2020

(Admitted on:18.12.2020)

N.D Nanjappa,

S/o Late N.A Devaiah,

R/o. Kodagarahalli village and Post,

Via Suntikoppa, Kodagu.

Karnataka-571237

(Advocate for the Complainant: K.A.R)

…..Complainant

VERSUS

1.     The  Manager,

        Canara Bank,

        (working partner  with Canara HSBC,

        OBC Life Insurance)

        Shuntikoppa  Branch,

        Somwarpet Taluk. Kodagu District

        Karnataka State.

2.     The  Authorised  person

        Canara HDFC Life, head office

        Unit No.208, 2^nd  Floor, Kanchejunga Building

        18 Barakhamba  Road, New Delhi-110001.

(Opposite Party No.1 :A.R.S)

(Opposite Party No 2 : D.K.R)      ……………. Opposite Parties

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI .PRAKASHA K.

1.       This complaint is filed under section 35  of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 Act seeking direction to Respondent return of deposit of Rs. 25,00,000/ under policy  no.0109438213 held with  Respondent and notice  charge of Rs.5,000/- cost of the proceedings Rs.5,000/- and  pain sufferance , valuable time spent and other reasonable efforts taken  by the Complainant and monetary loss  in terms of money is considered  it amount to hardly  Rs. 50,000/- in all  together  an amount of  Rs.25,60,000/-.

2.      The brief facts of the case are as under:

It is the  case of the Complainant  that, he is the  customer of the Opposite Party bank, as such the  Complainant  is a age  old person  he is  residing  in the above cause title  address , he  along with  his age old wife  and nearer to 100 years of age mother, apart from these three he do not  have any children , to take   care  of  them or his  family.    

3.     It is further case of the Complainant   that, for his old age he had a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- which were due to the falsified narrations invested in wrong policy bearing No.0109438213.  The Complainant was fully misguided by the respondent No.1 for his own cause.  The Complainant never ever knew the policy details.  Policy issued on 03.07.2020.

4.     It is further case of the Complainant   that, due to the age factor Complainant for his medical treatment that to in this epidemic Covid-19 disaster sought for the money.  The respondent No.1 deviated the Complainant that, the amount under this policy is locked for 3 years and later on he changes his version to 5 years,   but nowhere in the policy is no such locking period mentioned, but on the other hand  Respondent  deducted certain amount from the Complainant round up money.

5.     It is further case of the  Complainant  that,  in this regard he raised objections and sought for his hard earned only source of money which is held up interest he wrong hands of respondents.

6.     It is the further case of the  Complainant  that, the Complainant without any other alternative issued notice to the respondents  on 04.11.2020 calling upon to return policy fixed amount of Rs.25,00,000/- within 15 days of receipt of the notice.  The respondents after receipt of the notice only assured the Complainant by SMS to his mobile number.

7.     It is the further case of the Complainant  that, the respondents are only dragging the time. Hence, he submits that, without any other alternative as a consumer before this Commission seeking justice.

8.  After service of notice to Opposite Party no.1&2,  Opposite Party No.1&2  appeared  through their counsel  and   Opposite Party no.1 filed  the version as under:-

        They denied that, they are working partner with Canara HSBC OBC Life Insurance. However, they admit that the complaint is their customer they denied that, Complainant  is a age old person  or his  wife is old aged and they are not aware that the Complainant  is  residing  with  his  aged mother  who is  nearing 100 years.

9. However Opposite Party No. 1 admitted that,  the Complainant  has invested 25,00,000/- with  2^nd Respondent through Insurance Policy.  However they denied that Complainant   has invested the said amount  due to the  falsified and  narrations of the  Respondents.  Further they denied that the Complainant  was  fully misguided by them for his own cause. They denied that the Complainant   never  ever  knew the policy  details.  It further contends that policy issued on  03.07.020 does not convey any meaning.

10.    Opposite Party No.1 further denied that, due to the age factor for  medical treatment, that too during the  epidemic  Cavoid-19 disaster period Complainant   sought for money and they  deviated the Complainant  that  the amount  under policy is  locked for 3 years  or   that later  on he changed his version  to 5 years.  But Opposite Party No.1 contends that  nowhere in the policy is no such locking period mentioned  but on the other hand  Opposite Party deducted certain  huge amount  from  the Complainant  round  up money conveyed  no meaning  whatsoever. They further denied the Complainant  in this regard  raised objection or sought for his  earned only  sourced money which is  held up  in the wrong  hands  of Opposite Parties.  

11.    They contends that, that the Complainant   himself approached them  and  shown  inclination  to invest in the Insurance Policy  of the Opposite Party No.2.  

12.    They further contends that Opposite Party No.1 is just a facilitator   between the Complainant  and Opposite Party No.2. They further contends that, the Complainant  has  paid  the premium amount  through  this  Respondent as  evidenced  through  the transaction slip dated  15.06.2020 and  as per the said  document, it is  evident  that  the Complainant  has  opted   for the  said policy of his life  plan.

13.    Opposite Party No.1 further contends that, the Complainant  himself  submitted  duly filled online proposal form and has  paid  the insurance  premium  of Rs. 25,00,00/- against  the death  benefits of the said  amount  and accordingly   Opposite Party No.2  has issued  policy in favour of  the Complainant. As per the terms and  conditions of  the said  policy. Opposite Party No.2   agreed to pay  a monthly amount  of Rs. 12,736.73 to the Complainant   as monthly  annuity benefit and the same is  promptly  being paid to the Complainant   and the same shall be paid  throughout  the life time of the Complainant  and upon his death, the  same  shall be payable to the nominee.

14.    They further contends that, the policy of the Complainant  is under  force and as per the policy, there is  no scope  for the  closure of the  policy. They  further contends that ,in any scenario   the Complainant   is not  entitled  for any  amount from their  side.  Therefore  Opposite Party No.1 prays for dismissal of the  above complaint with cost.

15.    Opposite Party no.2 filed the version as under:-

        They contends that in the proposal form  there was a column wherein  the Complainant  had opted for immediately annuity plan with  return of purchase  price. They  contends that  Complainant  paid  the purchase  price of Rs. 25,00,000/- and  in lieu  of which  the Complainant  will get  Rs. 12,736.73/- as monthly  annuity benefit and said  Annuity  amount is payable , throughout  the life of the Complainant  and upon  death of he Complainant  / life  assured  the purchase price as  mentioned  above shall be payable by the company to the  nominee under the policy and policy will terminate per  its agreed  terms and condition.

16.    Opposite Party No.2 further contends that, since the proposal form  was  filled  electronically: the  Complainant  had  signed the addendum to the proposal form  after  being explained  about the contents of such  proposal form.  They further contends that no prudent person would have signed any document without understanding the intricacies  of the same.

17.    They further contends that  the  DLA was duly informed  on the features of the plan at the  proposal stage and he had  signed and agreed to the “Declaration” under the Addendum that he ratifies and confirms the submission of the   proposal form  which is  filled electronically  in face to face interaction with  the sales person and the policy plan is selected after  undergoing customized need analysis  as per Financial Need  assessment  form, thereby  declaring  that he had  read and understood all the features of the policy and that all the facts mentioned in the proposal form  are true, correct and complete in  all respect.

18.    Opposite Party No.2 further contends that  the Complainant  has miserably  failed to demonstrate any deficiency in service nor  has attributed  any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or  inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance: which  is required to be maintained  in pursuance of a contract.  Opposite Party No. 2 further contends that  in the present case, the Complainant  opted for two policies i.e. 0109300617 & 0109438213.  Opposite Party No. Further contends that  the Complainant  raised his grievance under policy 0109300617 within the freelook period  therefore the said policy was cancelled and the premium was refunded.  They further contends that  the Complainant  did not  raise any  grievance with regard to policy number 0109438213 and  agreed  to  continue with the said policy.  Therefore the policy number 0109438213 continued.  Thus  there is no deficiency in service on the part of  the answering  Opposite Party  while rendering  services to  the Life Assured nor were the answering  Opposite Party indulged into any  unfair  trade practise while rejecting the claim. Therefore  Opposite Party No.2 prays for dismissal of the complaint   with cost.  

19.    We have heard the arguments on both sides and perused the concerned documents and records.  In this case  Complainant has filed his  examination in chief by way of affidavit and his evidence  considered as  CW-1.  Complainant also produced 10 documents. Which are marked as Ex1 to ExP.10.  Manger legal and a authorised representative of the Opposite Party No.2 also filed  his   examination in chief by way of affidavit and his evidence considered as RW-1.  Opposite Party also furnished 3 documents which are marked as ExR1 to ExR3.

20.    In view of the above said facts, the points that arise for our consideration in the case are:

          (1) Whether the Complainant proves that          

                there  is deficiency in service on the  

                part  of Opposite Party 1&2 ?

 (2)  Whether the Complainant is 

        entitled to get reliefs as prayed for?

 (3)  What order?

21.

21.     We have considered the arguments submitted by the party and also considered the materials that, placed before the Commission and answered the points are as follows:

        Point No.(1) :  In the affirmative

        Point No.(2) :  In the  affirmative   

        Point No.(3) :  As per the final order.

REASONS

Point No. 1&2:

22.    In this case Opposite Party admitted that Complainant  has invested 25,00,000/-with 2^ndRespondent through Insurance policy. Opposite Party No.2 specifically contends that, since the proposal form was filled electronically the Complainant  had signed addendum  to the proposal form after being explained about the contents of such  proposal form and no prudent person would have signed any document  without understanding the intricacies of the same. Further Opposite Party also stated that as per the  terms and conditions of the policy the Complainant  was provided a free look  period of 15  days from the date of receipt of the policy  to cancel the policy in case there is any discrepancies in the policy.   They further submit that  the  answering Opposite Party as per clause 4(1) and 6(2) of the IRDA (Protection of Policy  Holder’s  Interest)  regulations,2002 sent the policy and policy document along with the copy of the proposal form to the Complainant   giving him an opportunity  to review / cancel the policy  within  freelook period  and  the present  case, the policy documents were dispatched  on 03.07.2020 to the registered address  of the  Complainant  through speed post via  airway bill no.EH707563022INand the same was  received  by the  Complainant  on 16.07.2020  and  the Complainant   approached  the company within freelook  period with  regard  to policy  number 0109300617 which was  cancelled  and  agreed to continue  with the policy 0109438213 which is the  subject matter of the present  complaint  and Opposite Party 2 submits that  this itself  creates  doubt on genuineness of the  present complaint.  therefore  Opposite Party no.2 submits that  Complainant  is now stopped  from raising any grievance  or issue relating  to the  policy or seek refund of the  premium paid  under the  policy and  the Complainant  is bound by the  policy contract and is  deemed to have given-up/ waived  his rights by not exercising  the  freelook provision within stipulated time period.

23.    Admittedly Complainant  is a senior citizen at the time of filing of this complaint who was aged about 71 years.  Further in the complaint  and evidence Complainant  states that he never ever knew  the policy details.  Further he has no issue.  Further Complainant  himself submitted before this commission that if the invested money returned  after his death no purpose would survive. 

24.    In this case  on perusal of case records it also appears that the recently on 22.09.2021 Opposite Party also return one letter to the Complainant and said letter is marked as ExC.10. In ExC.10 Opposite Party specifically stated  which read like this,

“We strive  to ensure that  our customers get the very  best  service from us.  We will investigate your grievance and try to  resolve within 15 days from the  date of  our  receiving the complaint.” 

Thus  ExC.10  issued by Opposite Party only after filing of the above  complaint  and in ExC.10 Opposite Party specifically stated that  they will investigate grievance of the Complainant and resolve within 15 days  from  the date of they  receiving the Complaint.  In this case, doubt would also arise whether the Complainant  had signed the Addendum to the proposal form  after being explained about the contents of such proposal form.  Thus at this stage  if the invested money not returned to the Complainant then the great injustice would be caused to him.  In other words he cannot eat the fruits of his hard earned money at the end of his life.  However Opposite Party failed to return the invested money to the Complainant.   Accordingly Opposite Parties committed  deficiency of service.  Thereby point no.1 answered in the affirmative.

25.     In this case we have already opined that Opposite Parties committed  deficiency in service.  Thereby Complainant  get relief as prayed for.  Accordingly point no.2 answered in  affirmative. 

Point No.3

26.     In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

          The complaint filed by the Complainant under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 is  allowed.

        Opposite Party No.2 shall  return the deposited amount of Rs 25,00,000/- under policy no 01094382138 to the Complainant  within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

        Opposite Party shall also pay cost and compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant.  In case Opposite Parties  failed to pay deposited amount of Rs.25,00,000/-within prescribed time then they shall pay interest at 7%p.a on the said amount from the date of order till realisation.

    Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Page No.1 to 17 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open Commission on this the 26^th day of November, 2021)

                                ANNEXTURE

    Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – N.D. Nanjappa (Complainant)

Documents marked on behalf of the complainant