IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2013.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No. 146/2012 (Filed on 07.09.2012)
Between:
Joseph Abraham,
Kunninickal House,
Thottamon, Ranni Village,
Ranni Taluk.
(By Adv. T.K. Binu) … Complainant.
And:
1. The Managing Director,
Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Now changed Max Life, 12th Floor,
DLF Square, Jacardanda Marg,
DLF phare II, Guarqeon 122002,
Registered Office, Max House,
3rd Floor, Jha Mary Okhal,
New Delhi.
(By Adv. Sasi Philip)
2. Chandy Abraham,
Mele House, Pazhavangadi P.O.,
Pazhavangadi Muri,
Pazhavangadi Village,
Ranni Taluk. … Opposite parties.
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that he had joined an insurance scheme of the 1st opposite party through the 2nd opposite party who is the authorized agent of the 1st opposite party by paying the 1st premium of Rs. 30,000 on 14.03.2007. The details of the scheme was narrated by the 2nd opposite party, at the time of joining in the scheme, is that the complainant has to pay Rs. 30,000 per year for 5 years and at the end of the 5th year, the complainant will get a maturity value of Rs. 1,69,119-78 and further the complainant will get insurance coverage for Rs. 2 lakhs for the rest of the complainant’s life.
3. Accordingly, the complainant paid the remaining 4 instalments to the 1st opposite party. Thus he had paid Rs. 1,50,000 to the 1st opposite party under the said scheme. The said policy was matured on 21.03.2012 and on maturity he demanded for payment of the maturity amount. At that time, the 1st opposite party intimated the complainant that he is entitled to get only 1/3rd of the maturity amount and 2/3rd amount will be retained with them for further investing in other schemes. At the time of joining, such a condition was not told the complainant and if such a condition was mentioned he would not join in the scheme. In pursuance there of complainant informed that he would not interested in further investing and also demanded for the repayment of the entire amount. Consequent to that, they sent a demand draft for Rs. 57,363.26, being the 1/3rd of the maturity value along with an intimation that the petitioner would loss his claim over the remaining 2/3rd portion of the maturity amount. As that condition was not intimated to the notice of the complainant by the 1st opposite party or the 2nd opposite party at the time of taking the policy or thereafter, the opposite parties are not entitled to retain or to disallow the complainant’s demand for the said amount. The complainant also caused a legal notice to the opposite parties in this regard but they have not responded. The non-payment of the balance amount is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for the realization of the balance amount with its interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the maturity date along with compensation of Rs. 10,000.
4. In this case, 1st opposite party entered appearance and filed their version with the following main contentions: 1st opposite party denied all the averments and contentions that are made by the complainant in this complaint. According to the 1st opposite party, this complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and malafide and is only an abuse of process of law and it was filed for availing undue advantages. This complaint is filed with baseless allegations of deficiency in service without any documentary evidence in support of the complainant’s allegations. This complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in limine. There is no cause of action in favour of the complainant. The complainant has not mentioned the details of the policy in his name and hence the opposite party is unable to trace the records of the complaint. With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
5. 2nd opposite party is exparte.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
7. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A9. Though the 1st opposite party filed their version they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour and not even cross-examined PW1 inspite of the chances given to them. After closure of evidence, the complainant was heard as the opposite parties are not present.
8. The Point:- The complainant’s allegation against the opposite parties is that he had taken a policy of the first opposite party though the second opposite party on 14.03.2007 and paid Rs. 30,000 per year for 5 years. As per the terms and conditions narrated by the second opposite party to the complainant at the time of taking the said policy is that if the complainant pays Rs. 30,000 per year continuously for 5 years, he will be entitled an insurance coverage of Rs. 2 lakhs for his entire life and the complainant will get Rs. 1,69,119-78 on muturity. On the basis of the same, the complainant had subscribed Rs. 30,000 per year for 5 years and thereby he had paid Rs. 1,50,000 to the opposite parties. The said policy was matured on 21.03.2012. On maturity, the complainant demanded the assured amount of Rs. 1,69,119. At that time, first opposite party intimated that he will only get 1/3rd of the muturity amount and the remaining 2/3rd will be retained with them for re-investment in some other schemes. On getting this intimation,9 complainant informed opposite parties that he is not intending for any reinvestment and also made his demand for the return of his money. On getting the complainant’s above said demand letter, opposite parties returned Rs. 56,373-26 being the 1/3rd of the matured amount and further intimated that the complainant will not get the remaining 2/3rd. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice for the return of the remaining 2/3rd amount which was not honoured by the opposite parties. The opposite parties are not entitled to forfeit the complainant’s payments and the complainant is entitled to get the same. The non-payment of the said amount by the opposite parties put the complainant to irreparable injury and loss and hence the complainant prays for allowing this complaint.
9. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed a proof affidavit along with 9 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A9. Ext. A1 is the photocopy of the proposal form for taking the Life Maker Pension Plan of the opposite parties. Ext. A2 is the policy document. Ext. A3 is the acknowledgment of receipt of policy. Ext. A4 is the letter sent by the opposite parties to the complainant for re-investing the amount in some other schemes. Ext. A5 is the copy of letter sent by the complainant to the officer concerned, Max New York Life, Thiruvalla. Ext. A6 is the copy of letter dated 04.06.2012 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ext. A7 is the copy of advocate notice sent by the complainant to the first opposite party. Ext. A8 is the postal receipt of Ext. A7 advocate notice. Ext. A9 is the postal acknowledgment card.
10. In this case, though first opposite party filed their version, they have not turned up for cross examining PW1 or they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour. Therefore, we have gone through the evidences adduced by the complainant and we found that there is no reason to disbelieve the allegations of the complainant against the opposite parties. Thus the complainant’s case stands proved as unchallenged.
11. The hard earned money of the complainant collected by the opposite parties is, no doubt, entitled to the complainant and the first opposite party is not entitled to retain or to forfeit the said amount according to their whims and fancies. Therefore, we find that the above said act of the of the first opposite party, the non-payment of the complainant’s money, is an illegal act and is an unfair trade practice and is a clear deficiency in service and hence opposite parties are liable for the same. Therefore, this complaint is allowable.
12. However from the facts and circumstances of this case, it is seen that all the troubles of the complainant is due to non disclosure of the real terms and conditions of the scheme by the 2nd opposite party. He canvassed the complainant for his own benefits which put the complainant to this troubles. So the 2nd opposite party is also liable to the complainant.
13. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the first opposite party is directed to pay the remaining 2/3rd of the maturity amount of the complainant’s policy with its interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 21.03.2012 along with cost of Rs. 5,000 (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The second opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 15,000 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) as compensation to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. In the event of non-compliance of this order by the opposite parties, the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount ordered herein in above from the concerned opposite parties with 12% interest per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 19th day of March 2012.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Joseph Abraham.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Photocopy of the proposal form for taking the Life
Maker Pension Plan of the opposite parties.
A2 : Policy document.
A3 : Acknowledgment of receipt of policy.
A4 : Letter sent by the opposite parties to the complainant
for re-investing the amount in some other schemes.
A5 : Copy of letter sent by the complainant to the officer
concerned, Max New York Life, Thiruvalla.
A6 : Copy of letter dated 04.06.2012 issued by the opposite
party to the complainant.
A7 : Copy of advocate notice dated 21.06.2012 sent by the
complainant to the first opposite party.
A8 : Postal receipt of Ext. A7 advocate notice.
A9 : Postal acknowledgment card.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
Copy to:- (1) Joseph Abraham, Kunninickal House, Thottamon,
Ranni Village, Ranni Taluk.
(2) The Managing Director, Max New York Life Insurance
Co. Ltd., Now changed Max Life, 12th Floor,
DLF Square, Jacardanda Marg, DLF phare II, Guarqeon
122002, Registered Office, Max House,
3rd Floor, Jha Mary Okhal, New Delhi.
(3) Chandy Abraham, Mele House, Pazhavangadi P.O.,
Pazhavangadi Muri, Pazhavangadi Village,
Ranni Taluk.
(4) The Stock File.
