DATE OF FILING : 30-08-2011.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 13-02-2012.
Ananda Ram Samanta,
son of Late Mahadev Samanta,
73, Desh Pran Sasmal Road ( 3rd floor ),
Panchanantola, Howrah Maidan,
District –Howrah--------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. The Manager,
Kotak Single Invest Advantage,
Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd.,
Regd. Office at 9th floor, Godraj Coliseum,
Behind Everald Nagar, SION ( East ),
Mumbai – 400 022.
2. The Manager,
Customer Care,
Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited,
Kotak Towers, 5th floor, Zone –II,
Building No. 21, Infinity Part,
opp. Western Express Highway,
Goregaon Mulund Link Road, Malad East,
Mumbai – 400 007.
3. The Manager,
Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd.
Insurance Ombudsman Office of the Insurance
Ombudsman North British Building,
29, N.S. Road, 3rd floor,
Kolkata – 700 001. ( Expunged dt. 05-01-2012)
4. The Manager,
Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd.,
49, Dobson Road ( 3rd floor ), P.S. Golabari,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711 101.----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY(S).
P R E S E N T
1. Hon’ble President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya.
2. Hon’ble Member : Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya.
C O U N S E L
Representatives for the complainant : Shri Asok Kumar Gupta,
Shri Shiv Kr. Das,
Ld. Advocates.
Representative for the opposite party nos. 1, 2 & 4 :
Mr. Abu Sadat Md, Abu Sayem,
F I N A L O R D E R
1. This is to consider an application U/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps.
2. The complainant, Shri Anand Ram Samanta, a sexagenarian, has come up before this Forum with the prayer for refund of Rs. 1,50,000/- deposited at a time for obtaining a policy namely Kotak Single Invest Advantage on 23-03-2011. Accordingly the o.ps. issued policy document to the complainant under Policy No. 02257424. Within couple of days the complainant was thrown in acute financial stringency compelling him to pray before the O.P. for refund of the same which was refused on the ground of locking period of five years.
3. The o.ps. in their written version contended that the complainant never approached the O.Ps. for cancellation under the free lock provisions as enshrined in the policy document ; that the free lock period is governed under Section 6(2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Regulations, 2002. Hence the provision for immediate surrendering of the policy is not available as per the present provision of the law.
4. Upon pleadings of the parties following points arose for determination :
1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the complainant had duly received the policy documents against his one term deposit of Rs. 1,50,000/-. We appreciate that “A policy of life insurance under which the whole of the benefits become payable either on the occurrence, or at a fixed interval or fixed intervals after the occurrence, of a contingency which is bound to happened, shall, if all premiums have been paid for at least these consecutive years in the case of a policy issued by an insurer, or five years in the case of a policy issued by a provident society as defined in Part III, acquire a guaranteed surrender value, to which shall be added the surrender value of any subsisting bonus already attached to the policy………….” Naturally the o.ps. are not in a position to offer relief to the complainant as prayed for. We also appreciate the argument on behalf of the o.ps. that the complainant invested his money to earn higher interest and income in the form of Unit Link Insurance Policy. The entire transaction was carried out with an intention of gaining commercial benefits. But we are unable to accept the argument of the Ld. Counsel that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition of the complainant. This is because the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a beneficial legislation with the intention to offer relief to the appropriate prayer.
6. Ld. Counsel candidly submitted that the investment amount is always reinvested by the company for offering ultimate financial gain to the consumers after the expiry of the locking period. He further submitted that in case of death the legal heirs of the policy holder can get back the refund of the invested amount. But within such short period of investment the prayer of the complainant cannot be allowed as it is barred by the provision of the Insurance Law.
7. Be that as it may we are to bear in mind that the complainant is a senior citizen and a sexagenarian. Being placed in acute financial stringency he had no alternative than to pray for refund of the invested amount. The company being a reputed one ought to have considered such prayer of a senior citizen keeping in view his financial stringency. Money in fact being only solace to a grand old man if receipt in proper time. A little bit sympathy the complainant can deserve from the company for getting back his hard earned money in the days of his need. We are of the further view that the o.ps. shall refund the invested amount curtailing the agreed interest as per the policy. Accordingly both the points are disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the consumer complaint filed U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 as amended till date is allowed on contest against the o.ps. with costs.
That the o.ps. be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- ( Rupees One lakh fifty thousand ) accepting the surrendered of the policy being no. 02257424 dated 23-03-2011.
That the complainant is further entitled to the litigation cost of Rs. 7,000/-.
That the o.ps. do refund the aforesaid amount within 30 days from the date of this order failing the complainant is at liberty to put the order into execution, in case the o.ps. do not refund the aforesaid amount within 30 days, the amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum till recovery.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs, as per rule.
