Complainant present in person
Opponent No. 1 through Lrd Adv. Tasgaonkar
Opponent No. 2 through Lrd Adv. Gokhale
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--
Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President Place : PUNE
// J U D G M E N T //
(26/03/2014)
This complaint is filed by retired Colonel against Life Insurance Corporation as well as Lakshmi Vilas Bank for deficiency in service under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts are as follows,
1] The complainant is a retired Colonel residing at Hadapsar, Pune-13. The opponent no. 1 is Life Insurance Corporation of India and the opponent no. 2 is Lakshmi Vilas Bank. It is the case of the complainant that on 9th Dec. 2011, he visited opponent no. 2 i.e. Branch Manager of Lakshmi Vilas Bank for depositing amount in fixed deposit. At that time the opponent no. 2 advised the complainant to invest the said amount in LIC and after obtaining loan on the said policy from LIC, the said amount can be invested in fixed deposit scheme. Accordingly a cheque of Rs. 3,91,805/- was collected from the complainant as one time premium amount. The said policy was assigned to LIC on which, it has sanctioned loan of Rs. 2,46,750/-.
Then said amount was invested in fixed deposit scheme with the opponent no. 2. Then the complainant had realized that he was deceived and the said policy was misssold to him. He never wanted to purchase the said insurance policy. Hence, he rushed to the opponent for cancellation of the said policy and fixed deposit account. Then the policy was cancelled by the opponent, but while canceling the said policy, certain amounts were deducted on the count of interest on the loan amount, stamp charges etc. It is the case of the complainant that the opponents have caused deficiency in service by miss-selling the policy and deducting interest on the loan amount while canceling the policy. He has prayed for refund of Rs. 12,165/- along with interest. He has further claimed interest @ 18% on the amount of Rs. 1,45,055/-. He has further claimed compensation of Rs.60,000/- for causing mental agony. He has prayed for reversion of Rs. 61/-, which were claimed as interest amount on the loan by LIC. He has further claimed interest @ 18% by way of cost for causing delay of payment.
2] Opponent no. 1 and 2, both have resisted the complaint by filing their separate written version. They have flatly denied that they have caused any deficiency in service. According to them, the contents of the complaint are false and complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is the case of the opponent no. 2 that the complainant has falsely pleaded that he is financially illiterate. It is contended that the complainant is having experience of military service for 41 years. He is well qualified as B.A., LL.B., MBA. There is no deficiency in service. The complainant himself gave his personal information while obtaining policy, loan as well as while investing the said amount with the bank. It is denied by the opponent no. 2 that no cooling period was given to him. It is the case of the opponent no. 2 that the complainant himself had assigned the policy to Insurance Corporation and obtained loan. It should be presumed that he himself has waived right to cancel the policy within 15 days. It is also contended that the complainant is benefited by the said transaction, as he had obtained loan from Insurance Corporation by paying interest @ 9% and the loan amount is invested in the bank in fixed deposit on the condition that he will receive interest @ 10.5 %. The allegations as regards compensation, refund and mental agony are flatly denied by the bank and it has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/-.
3] According to the Insurance Corporation, there is no question of deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Corporation, as the Insurance Corporation co-operated the complainant. All the transactions as regards obtaining policy and investing amount, took place between complainant and the opponent no. 2. The Insurance Corporation has promptly sanctioned loan on the policy and subsequently it was invested with the opponent no. 2 in fixed deposit. The Insurance Corporation has also contended that as the complainant is highly respected and best in the hierarchy of Arms Service as Colonel and he supposed to have maturity in every aspect. Moreover, he is holding academic qualification as B.A., LL. B. and MBA, hence it should be presumed that he is financially literate. The allegations made by the complainant against the Insurance Corporation are false. The amounts which were deducted, were relating with the risk of complainant’s life and interest on the demand loan. The opponent no. 1 has prayed for exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/- and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4] After considering pleadings of both the parties and scrutinizing the documentary evidence, which is produced before this Forum and hearing the arguments of both the counsels, the following points arise for determination of the Forum. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1. | Whether complainant has established that the opponent no. 1 and 2 have caused deficiently in service by selling insurance policy and by investing amount in fixed deposit? | In the negative |
2. | What order? | Complaint is dismissed. |
REASONS :-
5] The undisputed facts in the present proceeding are that the complainant is retired Colonel. He had rendered service for near about 40 years and achieved highest post in the said service. He is having academic qualification as B.A., LL.B. and MBA. He himself provided his personal information as well as his background to the opponents while filling the forms, which were required for obtaining insurance policy, opening of fixed deposit account and for demand loan. He has supplied his photo ID, address proof, income tax return and all the relevant documents to the opponents for obtaining insurance policy, loan and fixed deposit receipts.
6] At the fag end of the case i.e. at the time of argument, the complainant has developed plea of undue influence. It is the case of the complainant that the Bank Manager as well as Officers of the LIC put undue influence on him for obtaining insurance policy, demand loan and investment in fixed deposit. It is significant to note that this theory was not disclosed by the complainant at the earlier stage, when he approached to the Ombudsmen of Insurance Corporation in his complaint or in his affidavit or anywhere. Moreover, it has come on record that the complainant is matured person and has rendered rigorous service in Military department and achieved target and promotion, not only that, but he has also possessing the academic qualification of B.A., LL.B. and MBA. Under this back drop, it is very difficult to digest that the opponent is to put their undue influence on the complainant for investing in insurance and fixed deposit.
7] The second allegation made by the complainant against the opponents that the cooling period for withdrawing the insurance policy was not given to him and as per rules 15 days cooling period should be given to the insurer for cancellation of policy. The complainant has assigned his policy to the Corporation for obtaining loan on the same day. It should be presumed that he had waived his right of cancellation of policy and there is no question of cooling period of 15 days for cancellation of policy. It is significant to note that, after obtaining insurance policy, the complainant himself had assigned that policy to the Insurance Corporation and obtained demand loan by filling loan application. After getting loan amount, said amount was invested with the opponent no. 2 in fixed deposit. It is also pointed out by the opponent that the rate of interest of loan amount was 9% and the rate of interest on fixed deposit was 10.5%. It appears that after knowing this fact, the complainant must have been invested the amount in insurance policy and in fixed deposit. The opponent no. 1 also pointed out the other benefits of insurance i.e. risk coverage, refund of partial amount after stipulated period and others. In such circumstances, it is very difficult to accept the allegation made by the complainant as regards the deficiency in service.
8] The complainant has claimed the interest on the entire amount, which was invested by him in insurance policy and in fixed deposit. It reveals from the record that the Insurance Corporation has deducted certain amounts from the amount of investment by the complainant on the ground of interest on loan for documentation and certain administrative charges. It has also come on record that the interest paid by the opponent no. 2 to the complainant on the fixed deposit receipt is more than interest, which was imposed by the opponent no.1 on the loan amount. In these circumstances, this Forum has no hesitation to hold that there is no iota of deficiency in service caused by the opponent no. 1 and 2.
9] The complainant has made grievance about the attitude of the opponents, who had prepared documents of insurance policy, loan transaction and fixed deposit receipts with lightening speed, but at the time of cancellation their speed was snail’s speed. The learned Advocate for the opponent no. 1 i.e. Insurance Corporation argued before the Forum that, as per the terms and conditions, the complainant was not entitled to cancel the insurance policy, but it can be surrendered only and if he surrendered the policy, he would have sustained more loss. In these circumstances, the regional office of the Corporation took a decision to refund the amount of the complainant, so that he should not sustain more loss. It appears from the record that, near about 40 days have been required for the cancellation of the insurance policy. Certain amount is deducted on the count of risk of coverage. Those amounts can not be said as unreasonable amounts. It further reveals from the evidence and pleadings that both the opponents had acted as per the terms and conditions, which were impleaded in the documents, which were voluntarily accepted by the complainant. In these circumstances, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent no. 1 and 2.
10] The opponents have claimed compensatory costs from the complainant. But it reveals from the pleading that the complaint is not totally false, vexatious or frivolous. In such circumstances, exemplary costs can not be imposed on the complainant. In the light of the above discussion, the Forum answer the points accordingly and pass the following order.
** ORDER **
1. Complaint stands dismissed. In the
peculiar circumstances, there is no
order as to the costs.
2. Copies of this order be furnished to
the parties free of cost.
3. Parties are directed to collect the sets,
which were provided for Members within
one month from the date of order, otherwise
those will be destroyed.
Place – Pune
Date- 26/03/2014
