West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/118/2016

Sri Gangadhar Mali, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Reliance Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjit Acharja

19 Jan 2024

ORDER

Shri Sudip Majumder- President-in-Charge.

            The complainant/petitioner files this case U/S 12 of Consumer Sri Gangadhar Mali Kumar Saharoy, S/o. S/o Lt. Abani Manta Mali, permanent resident of Vill.- Suri Lalkuthipara, P.O. and P.S.- Suri, Dist.- Birbhum. On 11/04/2011 he purchased a life insurance policy being No. 18791704 with a consideration of Rs. 60,000/- from OP/Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited.

            It is the case of complainant that the petitioner filled an application to the OP for changing the mode of payment as single premium within 15 days of his from fill-up, from the date and he also mentioned that he will be unable to pay such huge premium in yearly mode continuously.

            It is the further case of the complainant that the OP firstly accepted the petitioner’s application by sending a letter dated 11/05/2011, and promised that they will convert the policy premium mode within a short time.

            It is the next case of the complainant that on 29/05/2014 the OP further convinced the petitioner and advised him to deposit next two years premium with interest which amount was Rs. 1,20,611/-. That on 29/05/2014 the OP company returned back Rs.  1,20,611/- without taking as policy premium for next period and without giving any interest of Rs. 1,20,611/- and advised to wait for some days.

            It is the specific case of the complainant that there after the petitioner wanted to know through written application on several times but in vain. That the petitioner sent a legal notice through his authorized advocate Md. Sajim Uddin on 30/06/2016. But the OP by sending a response letter to the applicant in the address of his authorized advocate which was treated as a repudiate letter and showed the current status as “Lapsed”.

 

            Hence, after finding no other alternative the complainant is compelled to file this complaint before this Forum/Commission for proper relief and prays for:

1. To pass an order against the OPs to return Rs. 60,000/- with interest or policy matured value as single premium policy against the OP.
2. To pass an order of compensation of Rs. 18,000/- as to cost of litigation.
3. To pass an order of compensation of Rs. 20,000/-.
4. To pass an order of cost and other relief or reliefs as Ld. Commission deems fit and proper.

The OP has contested the case by filing written version denying all material allegations of

the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the case.

            The OP stated in Para 12 of their W/N/A as “that the OP vide letter dated 20/02/2016 informed the petitioner that since the said request was outside the free look period of 15 days, the request could not be processed by the Opposite Party.”

            The Ld. Advocate for the OP insurance company cited some ruling in support of their case.

            Ultimately the OP members prayed for dismissal of the case.

Both the parties submitted written notes on argument (W/N/A). Some documents have also been filed by the complainant’s side and those are compared with original documents. Thereafter, respective Ld. Advocates for both sides made oral arguments in support of their case.

            Heard Ld. advocates for both sides.

            Considered.

            Perused all the documents.

Points for determination/Issues

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer as per definition of the term ‘Consumer’ of the C.P Act. ?
2. Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

Point No. 1:

            In this case, the complainant purchased an insurance policy from OP/Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited being policy No. 18791704. Thus the complainant is a consumer under the    OP/ Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited and the OP/ Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited is the service provider. Hence, the complainant is a consumer as per Sec. 2(1)d(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Point No. 2:

            Pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum/Commission as per Sec. 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is Rs. 20,00,000/-. OP/ Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited is situated in Birbhum District i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum/Commission as per Sec. 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So, this Forum/Commission has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.

In this case, the cause of action arose from 20/04/2011 and lastly on 09/07/2016 and the case has been filed on 15/09/2016 and as such it can be said that the complainant has filed this case within the statutory period of the C.P. Act, 1986 and as such the instant complaint is not barred by limitation U/S 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986.

Point No. 3:

It appears from the documentary evidence as available in the case record that the complainant purchased a life insurance policy from the OP side with a consideration of Rs. 60,000/-. Thereafter, he filed a petition to the OP for changing his mode of payment of premium as single premium. But, the OP replied that as per term and condition of the said policy it was not possible for them.

After that, as per advice of the agent of the OP side, the complainant paid Rs. 1,20,000/- to the OP as next two premium. But the OP refunded the same amount to the complainant and finally policy was not accepted due to medical ground.

Thereafter, the complainant wanted to return back the first premium of Rs. 60,000/- from the OP but the OP repudiated the same as the policy status shows as “lapsed”.

In view of our observation, the OP insurance company cannot forfeit the first premium of            Rs. 60,000/- of the said policy by hook or by crook.

Hence, the complainant is entitled to get the return back of the first premium of Rs. 60,000/- of the said policy from OP insurance company.

So, it is proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the aforesaid act of the OP is amounting to deficiency in service as per Sec. 2(1) (g) of C.P. Act, 1986 as well as unfair trade practice as per Sec. 2(1) (r) of the C.P. Act, 1986.

Hence, from the above discussion it is proved that the complainant could be able to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts.

Point No. 4:

As in this case, it is proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

Hence, the complainant is entitled to get relief or compensation as prayed for.

Thus, all the points are decided in favour of the complainant.

Complaint is sufficiently stamped and proved beyond all reasonable doubts.

• We find in Chengalrayan Cooperative Sugar Mills Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2000) 10 SCC 213 it was held that “Interest ought to have been awarded from the date on which the claim was filed before the Forum.”
• We also find in Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. Vs. G. Harishchandra Reddy & Anr. (2007) 2 SCC 720 it was held that “Only 9% interest be awarded on refund matter.”

In the instant case as per view of the Hon’ble Apex Court in several cases the interest will be given @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this case.

Hence, it is,

            O R D E R E D,

                                        that the instant C.F. Case No. 118/2016 be and same is allowed on contest with cost.

The OP/ Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited  is directed to return the first premium of Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum calculating on and from 15/09/2016 (i.e. from the date of filing of this case) till realization.

The OP is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand only) to the complainant/petitioner as cost of litigation.

The entire decree will be complied by the OP within 45 (Forty five) days from this date of order, in default the complainant is at liberty to put this order to execution in accordance with law.

The instant case is thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the parties to this case free of cost.