PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of July 2012
Filed on : 27/05/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 269/2011
Between
E.S. Jose, : Complainant
Chairman & Managing Director, (By Adv. Tom Joseph,
A 2 Z Group of concerns, Court road, Muvattupuzha)
P.T. Usha Road, Ernakulam.
And
The Manager, : Opposite party
M/s. Bajaj Allianz Insurance (By Adv. Sibha S., High Court
Co. Ltd., M.G. Road, of Kerala)
Ernakulam, Kochi-16.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant was approached by an agent of the opposite party for introducing the insurance policies of the opposite party. She introduced a single premium payment policy and promised good financial gain after 3 years. Lured by the assurances of the agent of the opposite party the complainant paid Rs. 1,00,000/- towards premium as per cheque dated 04-12-2006. But the policy document was not given to him. After repeated requests, the agent gave only the policy number. After the expiry of 3 years the complainant approached the opposite party to get the maturity amount of the policy. But instead of disbursing the maturity amount, they informed that the policy got lapsed due to non payment of the 2nd year and 3rd year premium. Thereafter the complaint sent a complaint to the opposite party. But they stood by their earlier reply. The complainant did not make any further payment since he was under the bonafide impression that the policy is a single premium policy as promised by the agent in the first instance. Moreover due to non supply of the policy document by the opposite party in time he was made to fail to look into the policy conditions. No further information or notice was given by the opposite party to deny the premium amount along with benefits offered by their agent amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The complainant is entitled for the refund of Rs. 1,00,000/- paid by him towards premium along with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from 04-12-2006 till realization together with costs of the proceedings.
2. The version of the opposite party.
The complainant took a new unit gain policy from the opposite party by paying Rs. 1 lakh. The premium frequency of the policy was annual not single. The policy document has been forwarded to him vide speed post No. EE 7572561971 N dated 17-02-2007. In the event of failure to make payment of regular premium and non payment even within grace period in the first 3 policy years, the policy shall immediately lapse. The lapsed policy can be revived within 2 years from the date of first unpaid regular premium. The complainant has not revived the policy and then the same was foreclosed. The complainant should have returned the policy during the free look period in which he failed. The complainant has not raised any grievance before the opposite party for more than 4 years. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
3. The power of attorney of the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 and 2 were marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence was adduced by the opposite party. Ext. B1 was marked on their side. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The only point that comes up for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the premium amount of Rs. 1 lakh with interest from the opposite party together with costs of the proceedings.
5. Admittedly the complainant submitted Ext. B1 proposal form for life insurance of the opposite party by paying Rs. 1 lakh on 06-12-2006 with sum insured of Rs. 5 lakhs. According to the complainant the agent of the opposite party represened that the policy was a single premium policy and the maturity amount would be disbursed after 3 years, believing the same he joined the policy by paying Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is stated that in spite of repeated requests the opposite party failed to issue the policy documents to the complainant. On the contrary the opposite party contented that they had duly despatched the policy documents to the complainant by speed post. According to the opposite party since the complainant failed to remit the subsequent yearly premium the policy got auto foreclosed and the insurance contract stands terminated.
6. Even according to the opposite party the complainant is entitled to invoke the provisions of free look period as per Regulation (2) of IRDA (Protection of Policy Holders Interest) 2002. During which period the complainant is at liberty either to proceed with the policy or to cancel the same. The opposite party vehemently contended that they have duly despatched the terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant by speed post. Neither terms and conditions of the policy nor the documents to show the dispatch of the same to the complainant did see the light of the day before the Forum. Truth has a habit of being not suppressed for too long here especially so since the complainant has forwarded Ext. A1 e-mail dated 03-02-2011 to the opposite party requesting to forward the terms and conditions of the policy even after the opposite party having claimed to have sent it by speed post, call it annoying or not. The opposite party in their argument note and at the time of hearing the learned counsel took a contention that Ext. A1 has not been proved as per Section 4 of the Information Technology Act and the document is inadmissible in evidence. We are not to accept the contention of the opposite party. since the documents was admitted in evidence with out demur. The subsequent hue and cry of the opposite party regarding the admissibility of Ext. A1 is untenable in law. To put it shortly this is where the dictum of “consensus ad idem” seems to have a flaw contractually.
7. In view of the above the arguments put
forward by the opposite party is clearly unsustainable. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get refund of the premium amount of Rs. 1 lakh paid by him uncontested with interest @ 12 p.a. from the date of receipt till realization.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of July 2012
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of non-receipt of policy
A2 : Copy of e-mail letter
Opposite party’s Exhibits : :
Ext. B1 : Copy of proposal form for
life insurance
Deposition:
PW1 : P.S. Peethambaran
