SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT.
The brief facts of the case are that the OPs Insurance Company issued two policies for Rs. 2,00,000/- each (Annuity Pension scheme ) covering a period of 03 years with an assurance to get Rs. 8,921/- per month after 03 years. Policies were returned to the representative of the insurance company on account of wrong information but till date policies have not despatched. Being convinced by the representative of the OPs, complainant No. 2 again invested Rs. 30,000/- to the OPs with an assurance to get medical cash benefit. Complainants vide email as well as letter lodged complaint to OP-2. Ultimately, OPs issued three cheques/DD of Rs. 30,056.37, 30,345.41 and 7,639.74/- in the name of complainant Nos 1 and 2 respectively as surrender value. Complainants returned those cheques/DD to M/s Reliance Nippoin Life Insurance Company Ltd.
Despite legal notices dated 08.02.2018 and 12.10.2018, OPs /Insurance Company did not heed to their request. Hence, the complainants have prayed for refund for an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest, compensation and litigation cost.
In their WV, the Insurance Company has inter alia averred that Insurance is a subject matter of solicitation. Complainants voluntarily approached the OPs for availing Life Insurance Produce and having detailed discussions complainants choose to avail the subject policies. In the proposal form, there is no mention that OPs would assure any kind of annuity or cash benefit to the complainants. Complainants paid premium for a period of one year despite that the OPs transmitted surrender value of the subject policies to the complainants vide cheque Nos. 304531, 298725 and 427733 for Rs. 7,639.74/-, Rs.30,056.37 and Rs. 30,345.41. Reliefs sought for by the complainants are unsustainable and without any merits. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
To prove their case both parties have adduced evidence on affidavit. They have also filed BNAs. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
The subject matter of the complaint relates to a dispute which emanates from non-payment of insurance amount. It is not in dispute that complainants took three insurance policies bearing Nos. 51626838, 51633732 and 51479966 from the OPs/Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. The allegations of the complainants is that the representative of the Insurance Company falsely induced them to invest money to Annuity Pension Scheme covering a period of 03 years with an assurance to get Rs. 8,921/- per month after expiry of 03 years. It is true that the complainants have paid initial premium of both the policies and non-payment of remaining yearly premium both the policies had lapsed. It is also a fact that the OPs remitted surrendered value of Rs. 7,639.74/-, Rs.30,056.37 and Rs. 30,345.41 to the complainants but the complainants refused to accept those cheques.
It is true that as per policy condition it is mandatory to the complainants to inform or to pay cancellation of the policy within free look period but in the present case, complainants did not opt the said option within the free look period. On expiry of free look period of the policies, complainants submitted their grievances against policies Nos.
51626838, 51633732 and 51479966 with a request to refund the invested amount which is beyond the terms and conditions of the policy.
The complainants contended that they were induced by the authorized representative of OPs/Insurance Company to purchase the policies covering a period of 03 years with an assurance to get Rs. 8,921/- per month after expiry period and also get medical cash benefit against Policy No. 51479966. It is also true that the OPs remitted the surrendered value of the subject policies to the complainants when they failed to pay annual premium and the complainants refused to accept the cheques.
No body can dispute that the Insurance Agent and/or representative of Insurance Company take signature of the insured on a dotted line, most of the terms and conditions of the insurance policies contain various provisions and exclusion clauses which could not be understood easily even by the experts in the field of occasions and ambiguous, the terms and conditions which are meant for understanding by the insured are mostly in a small print which require strenuous reading by insured, if at all he is vigilant, insurance, company have not simplified their proposal form or the form of insurance policies for reasons best known to them, insurance companies are not keen to publish the insurance proposal forms or the policies in the regional languages which could be understood by the insured or a layman, and exclusion clauses are never highlighted or explained by the agent or the officers to the insured.
Representative of the OPs/Insured company misguided the complainants for purchasing the subject policies for their own gain and profit. Such false inducement is obviously unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs as they engaged the representative for selling insurance product to the public.
The definition of -Consumer- under the CP Act is very wide and the broad objective of the Consumer Protection Act, which is to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers.
On perusal of Proposal Form annexed with the E/chief of the OPs, it appears to us that annual income of the complainants are Rs. 4,50,000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- respectively. Thus, it is not possible for the complainants to pay annual premium of Rs. 2,00,000/- for each policy. The representative of the OPs by misrepresentation, false inducement and unfair trade practice compelled the complainants to sign the proposal form and for that act complainants have suffered mental agony. Complainants failed to understand the false promise of the representative of OPs. Being allured by the sweet words of the representative of OPs, complainants agreed to purchase the subject policies from OPs. It is impossible for the complainants to continue the policies for 10 and 15 years by paying high premium though their yearly income are Rs. 4,50,000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- respectively. Insurance policy is a contract between the insurer and the insured and it stands upon utmost good faith. In the present case, the representative of the OPs missold the subject policies by way of misguiding the innocent complainants.
For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is allowed on contest with costs and the OPs are directed as under-
- OPs are directed to refund Rs. 2,00,000/- each to the complainants after, deducting 20 peercent thereof as administrative and other charges within 45 days from the date of this order in default they are liable to pay interest at the rate of 6 peercent per annum on the decreetal amount till realization.
- OPs are further directed to pay compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainants and cost of litigation in lump-sum to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- within a period of 45 days from the date of this order.
Liberty be given to the complainants to put the order in execution, if the OPs transgress to comply the order.
There is inordinate delay in disposal of the case on account of Covid-19, pandemic situation.
System Assistant is requested to upload this order on the website of this commission immediately.
