By Smt. Beena. M,Member:-
This is a complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
2. Facts of the case in brief: The Complainant is Syro Malabar Roman Catholic Priest now working as Vicar, St.Judes Church, Moolankavu, SulthanBathery, Wayanad District under the Roman Catholic Diocese of Mananthavady in Wayanad District. As the Parish Priest, the Complainant get transfers to different Parish Church on every 3years. While, the Complainant working as the Vicar of St. Mary’s, R.C Church at Pookottumpdam, Nilambore in Malappuram District, Mr. Siji, the third Opposite Party, the Branch Manager, Angamaly Branch of the Opposite Parties Company had approached the Complainant and persuaded him to join the 'Single Time Deposit’ of the Opposite Party Company. It was also informed and promised that only one time payment is needed and the Complainant would get a substantial amount after five years. So the Complainant had taken a Single Time Deposit policy for Rs.3,00,000/- on 19.02.2015 from the company through the third Opposite Party. The Opposite Party No.2 and 3 had promised that the Complainant would get 20% of interest on the amount if deposit 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) with Opposite PartyNo.2. But the Complainant came to know that the said deposit was a Life Insurance Policy instead of single time deposit when the Complainant got receipt from the Opposite Party No. 2 in 2016. The Complainant alleged that the Opposite PartyNo.3 had promised that the Complainant need to pay only a single deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- alone and he would be getting an amount of Rs.21,00,000/- from the company when it matures i.e., after five-years. The Complainant came to know that he has to pay Rs.3,00,000/- every year only after receiving letter dated 19.02.2016 issued by the Opposite Party for the payment for the year 2016. The Opposite Party No.3 had issued a cheque to the Complainant as a security for the matured amount stating that he has to pay only Rs.3,00,000/- for the entire years. Believing the words of the Opposite Party No. 3 and other Opposite Parties, the Complainant had paid the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the Reliance Life Policy. The Complainant was unable to pay the yearly amount of Rs.3,00,000/- each up to five years since the Complainant do not have income with him. It is submitted that the Opposite Parties had informed the Complainant about the yearly payment to be paid for five years only on 2016. Thereafter the Complainant sent a letter to the 1stand 2ndOpposite Parties requesting them to refund the entire amount paid by him on 19.02.2016 with interest. When the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 in 2016 to get back the amount paid, then they informed that the amount would get back only after 5 years. Although the Complainant paid the amount on 19.02.2015, it was recorded only on 20.03.2015 by the Opposite Parties. The amount shown in the cheque is only Rs.1,84,466.73/- paisa and another cheque forRs.1,864/-. The Opposite Parties have not stated any reason to send only Rs.1,86,330/- to the Complainant out of Rs.3 lakhs. The act of the Opposite arties caused the Complainant hardship, loss and mental and physical difficulties due to cheating. The Opposite Parties ought to have refunded the entire amount of Rs.3,00,000/with interest from 19.02.2015 till the date of maturing on March 2020. Here, the Opposite Parties have committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by not refunding the amount paid by the Complainant to them and by not mentioning about the yearly payments up to five years. Hence, this complaint.
3. After receiving complaint, the Commission issued notice to the Opposite Party. The notice was served and they appeared and filed their version contending as follows:
4. The Opposite Party submitted that after understanding all the terms and conditions of the Policy, the Complainant submitted a duly signed proposal form dated 03.03.2015 for obtaining a “Reliance Pay Five Plan” Policy from the Opposite Party. On the basis of the information provided in the proposal form, a Policy was issued on 20.03.2015 stipulating annual premium of Rs.3,00,000/- payable for a premium payment tenure of 5years and Policy Term of 10 years. Thereafter, the Policy was dispatched through Speed Post and the same was duly delivered on 01.04.2015.
5. That a free look period of 15 days was duly provided to the Complainant to review the features of the Policy Contract, and to request for the cancellation of the Policy, in case, the Complainant was not satisfied with the Policy Terms and Conditions. However, it is pertinent to mention that the Complainant did not raise any query with respect to the Policies during the free look period of 15 days and hence, it was presumed that the Contract was legally concluded between the parties.
6. That the renewal premium under the Policy was due on 20th March, 2016 but the Complainant failed to pay the renewal premium and resultantly the Policy lapsed.
7. That, the Complainant vide email dated 16.04.2016, i.e., after a period of more than 1 year alleged that the Policy was mis-sold to the Complainant.
8. That, the Opposite Party duly investigated the Complaint and during the course of investigation, it was observed that the Policy was duly delivered at the correspondence address of the Complainant on 01.04.2015 and no forgery/tampering with respect to the signature of the Complainant in the Proposal Form was found. As the Policy was delivered at the correspondence address of the Complainant on 01.04.2015, the free look period of 15 days stands expired on 16.04.2015. Thus, the Opposite Party vide email dated 14.05.2016 rejected the cancellation request of the Complainant on the ground that no forgery tampering was found on the proposal form and also the cancellation request was made after the expiry of the free look period of 15 days.
9. That, as per the terms of the Policy Contract the Opposite Party is under no obligation to entertain any request for cancellation of the Policy after the expiry of the free look period of 15 days.
10. That, as the Complainant failed to pay the stipulated premiums under the Policy, the Policy was foreclosed and the Complainant was paid the foreclosure amount of Rs.1,84,467 on 18.08.2020 and Rs.1,864/- on18.08.2020 in accordance with the terms of the Policy Contract. The relevant clause of the policy says that for the policies where the premiums are discontinued, the Fund Value shall be credited to the Discontinued Policy Fund. The proceeds of the discontinued policy fund shall be refunded only after completion of the five years. The minimum guaranteed interest rate applicable to the Discontinued Policy Fund will be at an interest rate as declared by the Authority from time to time. Currently the minimum guaranteed interest rate under the Discontinued Policy Fund is 4% compounding annually.
11. That the Hon’bIe Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Vipin Kumar v ICICI Prudential Appeal No.95/2013 decided on 01.05.2013 has held that “where insured had not sought the cancellation of the Policy within the free look period, he is bound by the terms and conditions of the Policy”..
12. That it has been determined through various judgments passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi, that if the insured/Complainant is not satisfied with the policy taken, then he/she should avail the option of returning the policy within 15 days of receipt i.e. within “the Free look Period”. Further, the National Commission held that “Once 15 days ' cooling off’ period is over, policy documents become binding on both the parties and the contents therein are also binding on both of them.” Thus, in concurrence with the proposition settled in the catena of cases, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground. That being completely aware about the Policy terms and condition, the Complainant cannot demand any relief which is beyond the policy terms and conditions. That, it is well accepted principle of law of contracts that every novation or alteration of a contract gives rise to a new contract and thus cannot be done by one of the parties or by any authority as the consent both the parties are required for the same. The Opposite Party submits so many case decisions in support of their contentions.
13. It is further submitted that, where any persons signs any document, the presumption is that he signed the same after going through its contents and understanding the same. That it has been reiterated in a judgment of the Apex Court as below:
14. In M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. & Anr V. M/s Aggarwal Steel 2010(1) SC 33 it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under :
“When a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise, no signature on a document can ever be accepted.”
15. Thus, the Complainant was well aware about the terms and conditions of the policy in question at the time of availing the Policy and are bound by the contents of the same.
16. That the prayer of the Complainant for refund of premium for the said policy in question in the present case is completely against established law in relation to life insurance, as the benefits will be payable only as per the terms and conditions of the subject policy. That the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has observed in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Siba Prasad Dash, reported as IV (2008) CPJ 156 (NC), at Para 5 as follows: “The premium is given by an insured, to cover the risk for a given period, and the insurer covers the risk for the period for which the premium has been paid. It is not the case of the applicant that the risk was not covered for the period for which the premium was given.
17. That the Complainant under the present Complaint is seeking a relief which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission as the Commission cannot alter the terms of the Contract which has been agreed by the parties.
18. That the contents of Para 2 and 3 are wrong and denied and the Complainant must be put to strict proof of the same. It is submitted that after understanding all the terms and conditions of the Policy, the Complainant submitted a duly signed proposal form dated 03.03.2015 for obtaining a “Reliance Pay Five Plan” Policy from the Opposite Party. On the basis of the information provided in the proposal form, a Policy bearing No 52099433 was issued on20.03.2015 stipulating annual premium of Rs.3,00,000/- payable for a premium payment tenure of 5 years and Policy Term of 10 years. Thereafter, the Policy was dispatched through Speed Post bearing AWB No ET4180549291N and the same was duly delivered on 01.04.2015.
19. A free look period of 15 days was duly provided to the Complainant to review the features of the Policy Contract, and to request for the cancellation of the Policy, in case, the Complainant was not satisfied with the Policy Terms and Conditions. However, it is pertinent to mention that the Complainant did not raise any query with respect to the Policies during the free look period of 15 days and hence, it was presumed that the Contract was legally concluded between the parties.
20. The Complainant vide email dated 16.04.2016, i.e., after a period of more than 1 year alleged that the Policy was mis-sold to the Complainant. The Opposite Party duly investigated the Complaint and during the course of investigation it was observed that the Policy was duly delivered at the correspondence address of the Complainant on 01.04.2015 and no forgery/tampering with respect to the signature of the Complainant in the Proposal Form was found. As the Policy was delivered at the correspondence address of the Complainant on 01.04.2015, the free look period of 15 days stands expired on 16.04.2015. Thus, the Opposite Party vide email dated 14.05.2016 rejected the cancellation request of the Complainant on the ground that no forgery/tampering was found on the proposal form and also the cancellation request was made after the expiry of the free look period of 15 days.
21. That in reply to the contents of Para 4 it is submitted that as the Complainant failed to pay the stipulated premiums under the Policy, the Policy was foreclosed and the Complainant was paid the foreclosure amount of Rs1,84,467/- on 18.08.2020 and Rs.1,864/- on18.08.2020 in accordance with the terms of the Policy Contract. The relevant clause of the policy contract is reproduced below.
22. Discontinued Policy Fund: For the policies where the premiums are discontinued, the Fund Value will be moved to Discontinued Policy Fund. The proceeds of the discontinued policy fund shall be refunded only upon completion of the five year. The minimum guaranteed interest rate applicable to the Discontinued Policy Fund will be at an interest rate as declared by the Authority from time to time. Currently the minimum guaranteed interest rate under the Discontinued Policy Fund is 4% compounding annually.
23. That in reply to the contents of Para 5 it is submitted that the Opposite Party issued the Policy on the basis of the information provided in the Proposal Form. It is submitted that the Opposite Party has acted strictly in furtherance to the terms of the Policy Contract and as such, no deficiency in services or unfair trade practices can be attributed towards the Opposite Party. Thus, as per the terms of the Policy Contract the Complainant is not entitled to claim refund of the premium amount paid under the Policy. Therefore, the Opposite Party prayed to dismiss the complaint.
24. Points for consideration are as follows:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party?
- If so, relief and costs.
25. The Complainant filed proof affidavit and examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext. A1, A2 series and X1 series. No oral evidence and no documentary evidence from the side of the Opposite Party.
26. On going through the statement of both parties, documents as available on record and heard argument from both sides, it is admitted that the Complainant purchased an insurance policy from the Opposite Parties by depositing an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. But the allegation of the Complainant is that at the time of purchasing the policy the agent (OP3) of the Opposite No.1 told him that it is a single premium policy and gave assurance to the Complainant that the said policy would be matured after 5 year and on maturity the Complainant would get Rs.21,00,000/-. After receiving a letter from the Opposite Party, then the Complainant came to know that said policy is for the period of ten years would have to pay the premium annually @ Rs.3,00,000/-for four times more. The allegation of the Complainant is that the Opposite No. 4 has misguided him at the time of purchasing the said policy. So, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 and requested to refund of his premium amount paid by him at the time of purchasing the policy. But as they have not redressed his grievance, so he filed the complaint. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant has purchased the policy after fully aware regarding the features, terms and conditions of the policy and signed the proposal form and on the basis of the said application form from the Opposite Party issued the said policy. As per the terms of the policy, the Complainant was required to pay yearly premium of Rs.3,00,000/- for 5 years with a policy term of 10 years.
27. The main allegation of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party No.3, who is the manager of the company, misguided him at the time of purchasing the insurance policy. Here, the question to be decided in this case whether Complainant obtained policy on the basis of single premium or on the basis of yearly premium. Perusal of proposal form clearly reveals that Complainant opted for policy on regular basis and premium was to be paid yearly. It is clearly mentioned under the plan details that the policy term is 10 years and premium paying term is 5 years. Instalment premium was also mentioned as Rs.3,00,000/- and the same was payable yearly. The said application form was duly signed by the Complainant. Therefore, the allegation of the Complainant that the policy was mis-sold by the Opposite Party is not sufficient to rebut this overwhelming evidence on record, so the same cannot be accepted. Here, the Complainant has every right to cancel the policy within the free look period in accordance with the IRDA regulations if he was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the Complainant has failed to take advantage of the free look period which has been framed by the IRDA for protecting the interests of the policy holders. Here the Complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. So, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the Opposite Party.
In the result the complaint is dismissed without cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29th day of June 2024.
Date of Filing:-13.10.2020.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:-
PW1. Fr. Sebastian Unnipally. Priest.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:-
A1. Copy of Initial Premium Deposit Receipt. Dt:04.03.20215.
A2(Series). Copy of Letter, Postal Receipt and Acknowledgment Card.
X1 (Series). Policy Copy with conditions. (48 Pages).
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
Kv/-
