ADV. RAVISUSHA, MEMBER.
The complainant availed a single premium Life Link Pension II from the opp.parties by paying premium amount of Rs.50,000/- As per the policy terms and conditions the period was three years and on maturity the complainant approached the opp.party for withdrawing the benefit amount. But she was advised by the officials of the opp.parties that at present it is not profitable to withdraw the amount and also advised to continue the plan for further two years. The complainant acted accordingly and on expiry of the period of 5 years the complainant again reached the opp.parties for withdrawing the amount. At this point of time the officials of opp.parties informed the complainant that she is entitled to withdraw only 30% of the amount since she has not withdrawn the amount at the expiry of three years . Further the opp.parties informed the complainant that the balance amount will be deposited in the Pension Scheme . The act of the opp.parties in giving assurance to the complainant that she can withdraw the benefit amount after the expiry of 5 years and the act of disallowing the complainant to withdraw the amount after 5 years amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the opp.parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate for such losses sustained by the complainant. Hence this complaint
Opp.parties filed version contenting that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that the present complaint is barred by the limitation period as enumerated in Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 wherein the period for filing a consumer complaint is of 2 years from the date the cause of action first arose. It is most respectfully submitted that the issue in question relates back to February 2005 and the present complaint has been filed on August 2010. Therefore, the present complaint is apparently barred by the period of limitation and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. Moreover, the complaint has not filed the application for condonation of delay in filing the present complaint and therefore apparently reveals the ill motive of the complainant to gain the unlawful benefit., that the complaint does not disclose any deficiency on the part of the answering opp.party. Despite receipt of the aid policy and its terms and conditions and other documents, the complainant never raised any objection during the free look period on any aspect under the above mentioned policy, implying that the complainant agreed to the policy and its terms and conditions and was acceptable to him, that the opp.party issued the policy on the basis of the proposal form filled and submitted by the Life Assured/Complainant. The insurance contract is entered into between the Life Assured and the opp.party on the terms and conditions. The annuitant shall receive annuity for life. The purchase price shall be payable on death of the annuitant. The annuitant would receive an annuity for a certain period as selected by him [5, 10 or 15 years] and for life thereafter. If he survives the selected period. If, however, the annuitant dies before all the annuity installments due during the selected period [5, 10 or 15 years] are paid the balance annuity installments due during the selected period shall be continued to be paid. It is submitted that before the time of maturity of the policy the opp.party being a customer centric company duly informed the complainant about the maturity of the policy vide letter dated January 02, 2009 stating that the policy has attained maturity on February 16, 2008 along with the copy of the annuity quotation to be filled and signed and which was to be submitted to the company. But the complainant never approached the company for choosing the annuity options available to her. Copies of the letters dated January 02, 2008. March 04, 2008, June 07,2008 and January 02, 2009along with the annuity quotation are annexed herewith as Annexure C-4 [Colly] As per the terms and conditions of the policy the complainant was duly offered the various options for annuity to which she was entitled but instead of opting for the same she has approached this Hon’ble Forum on a false and frivolous ground. The opp.party has not committed any act of deficiency of services and therefore the present complaint is liable to be rejected.
Points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opp.parties.
2. Reliefs and cost
For the complainant PW.1 was examined and marked Ext. P1
No oral or documentary evidence for the opp.parties
THE POINTS:
Complainant’s case is that he availed a single premium Life Link Pension II from the opp.parties by paying premium amount of Rs.50,000/- As per the policy terms and conditions the period was three years and on maturity the complainant was advised by the opp.parties that to continue the plan for further two years. The complainant acted accordingly and on expiry of the period of 5 years the complainant again approached the opp.party. Then the opp.party informed the complainant that she is entitled to with draw only 30% of the amount since she has not withdrawn the amount at the expiry of three years. According to the complainant the act of the opp.parties in giving assurance to the complainant that she can withdraw the benefit amount after the expiry of 5 years and the act of disallowing the complaint to withdraw the amount after 5 years amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Opp.party entered appearance, filed version and cross examined the complainant. But opp.parties did not adduce any evidence to substantiate their version. Complainant produced Ext.P1 and adduced evidence. Though opp.party cross examined the complainant nothing has been brought out in evidence to discredit the complainant’s case. Opp.party did not produce any material evidence. Without adducing evidence mere pleadings in the version is not sufficient to substantiate their case There is no dispute that the complainant availed a single premium Life Link Pension II from the opp.parties by paying premium amount of Rs.50,000/- . Through complaint, chief affidavit and Ext.P1 the complaint has proved her case. As per condition NO.5 [3] the complainant is entitled to withdraw 100% of the value of units.. From the available evidence we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opp.parties and there is no limitation in filing this complaint. Hence the complainant is entitled to get relief.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. Opp.parties are directed to pay the complete policy benefit to the complainant. Opp.parties are also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost to the proceedings. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dated this the 26TH day of November, 2012.
I N D E X
List of witnesses for the complainant
PW.1. –T. Saraswathy
List of document for the complainant
P1. – Policy certificate with conditions and proposal form
List of witnesses and documents for the opp.pa
