Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/130/2011

D. CHITRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE SENIOR DIVISONAL MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

V.S. RAJARAM

26 May 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                     BEFORE         THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI       PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                         Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                  MEMBER

 

F.A.NO. 130/2011

[Against the Order in  C.C No.19/2009 dated 25.11.2010 on the file of the DCDRF, Salem ]

DATED THIS THE 26^th DAY OF MAY 2015

1. T.Chitra

W/o C.Ayyasamy,

Policy No. 702890776

No.419/83, B, Housing Unit,

Edappadi Taluk, Salem 637 101

 

2. C.Chinnannan

S/o Chinnasamy

Policy No. 703632609,

Meyyampalayam, Thathapuram post

 

3. C.Meena

D/o Chinnannan,

policy No 702890663

Poolavariyankadu, Meyyampalayam

Thathapuram post, Edappadi Taluk,

Salem District

 

4. C.Nandini

S/o Chinnannan,

policy No 702890662

Poolavariyankadu, Meyyampalayam

Thathapuram post, Edappadi Taluk,

Salem District

 

5. C.Gowdham

S/o Chinnannan,

policy No 702890661

Poolavariyankadu, Meyyampalayam

Thathapuram post, Edappadi Taluk,

Salem District

 

6. C.Ayiyathal,

w/o Chinnakutti

Policy No. 702893171

Door No. 69-25-B-Mottur

Edappadi Taluk, Salem 637 101

 

7. C.Chinnakutti,

S/o Chinnathambi

Policy No. 702893172

Door No. 69-25-B-Mottur

Edappadi Taluk, Salem 637 101

 

8.  C.Chinnathambi

S/o Chinnakutti

Policy No. 702893072

Door No. 69-25-B-Mottur

Edappadi Taluk, Salem

 

9. M.Sreerangammal,

S/o C. Chinnakutti

Policy No. 702893070

Door No. 69-25-B-Mottur

Edappadi Taluk, Salem

 

10.  M.Prema

D/o M. Sreerangammal,

Policy No. 702893461

Door No. 69-25-B-Mottur,Kattuvalavu

Edappadi Taluk, Salem

 

11. M.Selvaraj

S/o M. Sreerangammal,

Policy No. 702893460

Door No. 69-25-B-Mottur,Kattuvalavu

Edappadi Taluk, Salem

 

12.   K.Manochitra,

D/o P.Kandappan

Policy No. 7028905891

Kotthapalahyam, Chettimankurichi post

Edappadi Taluk, Salem

 

13.  G.Damodharan

Policy No. 702890589

350 E-1K1, Perumal Kovil colony

Jalakandapuram, Edappadi Taluk

Salem 637 101

 

14.  T. Prasannakarthi

S/o G.Damodharan(P)

Policy No. 702890594

350 E-1K1, Perumal Kovil colony

Jalakandapuram, Edappadi Taluk

Salem 637 101

 

15.  T.Gowsalya

D/o G.Damodharan

Policy No. 702890722

350 E-1K1, Perumal Kovil colony

Jalakandapuram, Edappadi Taluk

Salem 637 101

 

16. T.Ambika

D/o G.Damodharan

Policy No. 702890723

350 E-1K1, Perumal Kovil colony

Jalakandapuram, Edappadi Taluk

Salem 637 101

 

17.   T.Alamelu

W/o G.Damodharan(P)

Policy No. 702890593

350 E-1K1, Perumal Kovil colony

Jalakandapuram, Edappadi Taluk

Salem 637 101

 

18.  V.Elavarasi

D/o V.Veerappan

Policy No. 702890590

Kothapalayam, Chettimankurichi,

Edappadi Taluk, Salem District

 

19. C.Ayyasamy

Policy No. 702892024

No.419/83, B Housing Unit,

Edappadi Taluk, Salem 637 101

 

20.  A.Brinda

D/o C.Ayyasamy,

Policy No. 702890588

No.419/83, B Housing Unit,

Edappadi Taluk, Salem 637 101

 

21.  A.Brinda

D/o C.Ayyasamy,

Policy No. 702892254

No.419/83, B Housing Unit,

Edappadi Taluk, Salem 637 101                  ..Appellants/complainants                                                     

                                            Vs

1.The Senior Divisional Manager

LIC of India

Jeevan Prakash, Johnsonpet

post box No.776

Salem 636 007

 

2. The Branch Manager

LIC of India

Sankari Branch

Shanmuga complex, 2^nd Floor,

New Edapadi Salai, Sankari

Salem 636 007

 

3.   E.Vijayakumar

The Growth Inspector,

LIC of India

Sankari Branch

Shanmuga complex, 2^nd Floor,

New Edapadi Salai, Sankari

Salem 636 007

 

4.   M.Revathi

Agent, LIC of India

Sankari Branch

Shanmuga complex, 2^nd Floor,

New Edapadi Salai, Sankari

Salem 636 007                                       ..Respondents/opp.parties

 

5. A.Partheeban, S/o C.Ayyasamy

policy No.702890777

No.419/83, B,Housing Unit

Edappadi Taluk, Salem 637 101                 ..Respondent/22^nd complainant

(Now residing at Singapore in BLK 122, Race Course,03/02,Singapore 218 583)

 

Counsel for the Appellants/complainant       M/s V.S.Rajaram, K.P.C.Mogan

Counsel for the Respondents/opp.parties 1& 2  : M/s K.Kumaran

Counsel for Respondents/opp.parties 3 &4       : M/s P.S.Anand

 

The complainants are the appellants, filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain reliefs. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the Appellant/complainant filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in CC.No. 19/2009  dated 25.11.2010.

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 1.4.2015 upon hearing the arguments on both side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.

THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.     The unsuccessful complainants are the appellants. The complainants having lured by the advertisement and canvassing of 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties invested their money for the money plus insurance scheme without ascertaining the details of the proposal form and the scheme signed in the proposal form and subsequently came to know since for those investment in money plus scheme instead of taking single premium invested into regular premium in which the LIC had deducting allocation charges to the tune of 26.5 % for the 1^st year and 5% for the 2^nd year and 3^rd year. Against the single premium policy, it would be only for 4.25%, hence the complainants approached the opposite parties 1 and 2 to cancel the regular premium and to transfer their policy to single premium status which was denied and thereby a consumer complaint came to be filed alleging unfair trade practice, deficiency in service for the direction to return the premium amount with interest or to convert the policy into single premium and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- each as compensation and for costs.

2.     1^st and 2^nd opposite parties denied the allegation stating that the complainants availed the policies only after fully came to know about the terms and condition of the policy signed the proposal in English and they cannot plead illiterate, further if they are not satisfied with the policy on receipt of policy within 15 days, they could return the policy for cancellation, but they have failed to do so. The 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties contended one Ayyasamy induced the complainant to take the policies and he had given the proposal form duly signed by the complainants stating that the complainants were fully explained the terms and conditions and  to blackmail the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties to receive money and induced the complainants to file false complaint. The complaint is barred by limitation. There is no deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

3.       Based on both side materials and after an enquiry, the District Forum accepted the contentions of the opposite parties, dismissed the complaint.

4.        Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainants have come forward with this appeal contending that the District Forum erroneously dismissed he complaint and since the policies were received after three months of the proposal made, they were not in a position to file the appeal within 15 days from the date of policy and the terms and conditions were not properly explained to the complainants and thereby the appeal is to be allowed. The Appellants/complainants filed certain documents by way of additional documents before this Commission by way of additional evidence which are permitted to be marked as Ex.A.7 to A.18.

5.     Both side written arguments are treated as oral arguments and we have considered the written submission carefully in this regard. The only contention of the appellants is that they have taken money plus policy from the LIC, opposite parties 1 and 2 for which they are deducting 26.5 % of the first premium paid towards allocation charges. But of the its nature of premium is for single premium it could be only for 4.5 % alone and thereby they wanted to convert the policy from regular premium to single premium which was not allowed by the opposite parties. The opposite parties contended that the complainants are well explained with the terms and conditions of the policy through their representatives, op 3 and 4 and after signing the proposal in English, they cannot plead, ignorance and the policies were even though issued after three months when the policy holder not satisfied with the policy he could return the policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy and it was not done by the complainants in this case whereas the complainant contended since the policies were received after three months, they were not able to make any alteration or modification in the policy within 15 days from the date of the policy. This contention of the appellants is erroneous and they have wrongly interpreted the same. As per the terms and conditions of the policy from the date of receipt of the policy within 15 days if it is surrendered or returned the amount paid towards premium will returned by the opposite parties 1 and 2.

6.       Eventhough the policies were issued after three months of the proposal it is clear from the date of receipt of policy within 15 days, if the complainants would have acted by surrendering the policies for cancellation or for modification from regular premium to single premium they would have got the refund of premium which was not done so in this case and thereby the opposite parties cannot act against the rules and conditions of the policy against IRDA regulations. The complainants though relied upon the additional documents under Ex.A.7 to Ex.A.18 which are all letters sent by the complainants and receiving replies under Ex.A.9, A.14 and Ex.A.16 which are all only in the form of doubts raised by the petitioner for which clarification with details of the policy and terms and conditions by way of reply made would go to show that the complainants are being fully informed and explained the circumstances for the policies issued and the terms and conditions to the complainants and those documents no way helpful  for the purpose of appeal and as for as the filing of complaint is complained before the District Forum is concerned, there are 22 persons allied as complainants filed against the opposite parties 1 to 4 and the complaint  was signed by all the complainants filed as a single complaint for which no specific permission was obtained for filing such a group of persons as a single complaint u/s 12(c)  of C.P.Act and in those circumstances and other reason as discussed above and  in view of the well considered order passed by the District Forum after taking into analysis of all the materials placed before it, we find no error or infirmity or irregularity or illegality, thereby the appeal deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merits and accordingly,

              In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum in CC 19/2009 dated 25.11.2010, dismissing the complaint.

            No order as to costs in this appeal.

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                       A.K.ANNAMALAI 

MEMBER                                                        PRESIDING JUDL.MEMBER

 

                                       ANNEXURE

 

LIST OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE APPELLANTS/ COMPLAINANTS: 

Ex.A.7          4.12.2007     copy of letter sent by the petitioner to respondent

Ex.A.8           21.12.2007   copy of letter sent by the petitioner to respondent

Ex.A.9          30.1.2008     copy of letter sent by the respondent to petitioner

Ex.A.10        6.2.2008      copy of letter sent by the petitioner to respondent

Ex.A.11        5.3.2008      copy of letter sent by the petitioner to respondent

Ex.A.12        8.4.2008      copy of letter sent by the petitioner to respondent

Ex.A.13        22.5.2008     copy of letter under RTI Act sent by the petitioner

Ex.A.14        19.6.2008     copy of Reply letter under RTI Act

Ex.A.15        11.7.2008     copy of letter to the appellate authority under RTI       

                                       Act to the Respondent’s Chennai office

Ex.A.17        16.8.2008     copy of letter by the petitioner to the respondent

Ex.A.18        30.10.2008   copy of letter by the petitioner to the Respondent

 

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                       A.K.ANNAMALAI 

MEMBER                                                        PRESIDING JUDL.MEMBER