KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES             REDRESSALCOMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

          COMMON ORDER IN

APPEALS 304/2010 & 353/2010

DATED 31.3.2011

PRESENT:-

 JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU     :       PRESIDENT

APPEAL 304/2010

APPELLANT

Metlife India Insurance Company Ltd.,

Registered office, “ Brigade Seshamahal”

5, Vani Vilas Road,

Basavanagudi, Bangalore – 560 004.

       .                 

                 (Rep. by Adv.  Roshin Ipe Joseph )

                                              Vs

RESPONDENTS

1.        Yusuf,

S/o Yarammu,

Muttan Gate Shiriya,

P.O. Kumbla – 671321,Kasargod District,

Kerala.

2.        Sajesh KS,

Financial Consultant,

Geogit Financial Services Ltd.,

Tiger Hils, Kasargod – 671 121, Kerala.

                 (Rep. by Adv.  M/s. Peter & Karunakaran)

APPEAL  No. 353/2010

APPELLANT

           Sajeesh K.S.,

           Financial Consultant,

           Geojit Financial Services Ltd.,

           Tiger Hills, Opposite Muncipal Office,

           Kasaragod – 671 121.

                 (Rep. by Adv.  Sri. M/s. Mathew B. Kurian)

RESPONDENTS

1.     Yusuf, S/o Yarammoo,

Muttom Gate Shriya, P.O. Kumbala,

Kasaragod District.

      2. Metlife India Insurance Company Ltd.,

Registered office, “ Brisede Shanaha mahal”

5, Vani Vilas Road,

Basavanagudi, Bangalore – 560 004.

                 (Rep. by Adv.  M/s. Peter & Karunakaran)

ORDER

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU      :    PRESIDENT

          The appellant in Appeal 304/2010 is the first opposite party/Metlife  India Insurance company limited.  The appellant in Appeal 353/10 is the second opposite party/  Financial Consultant in C.C. 102/09 in the file of CDRF, Kasargod

          The appellants are under orders to pay  a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant as compensation towards deficiency in service and cost of Rs. 20,000/- if the amounts are not paid within 30days.  The amount  Rs. 20,000/- will carry interest @ 12% from the date of complaint.

          The case of the complainant is that he had joined in the life insurance scheme of the first opposite party in the name of his son on 3.3.2007.  The maturity value was Rs. 6,00,000/- The policy was availed on the persuasion of the second opposite party, Agent.  The annual premium paid was Rs. 20,000/-  As the second opposite party has assured that the entire premium will be refunded when the policy surrendered prematurely  and  was also assured of a lot of benefits.  The date of maturity was not disclosed. The complainant subsequently came to know that the maturity period of the policy is 86 years ie, in 2092  When contacted, for the  was surrender of the policy he was told that the premium amount will be refunded only if the premium is remitted consecutively  for 3 years and  after deducting certain amounts.  The complainant received the policy booklet only after 60 days  the remittance of the first premium.  The complainant has sought for the return of the amount paid.

          The first opposite party had contented that along with the  policy a free look period of 15 days was provided  and if within the time the policy is returned he will be entitled to refund of an amount equal to non allocated premium plus  cancellation charges of unit plus fund value as on the date of commencement of the policy minus expenses incurred for medical examination and stamp duty.  The policy was issued on 3.3.97and the renewal premium was to be paid on 22.9.2008.  The same was not paid.  The letter seeking cancellation of policy was received on 17.11.2008.  The same cannot be allowed as the policy stands lapsed. 

          The second opposite party

has also filed version contenting that he was only facilitator and he received only a marginal amount as commission.  According to him he has never mislead the complainant.  Everything was disclosed to him.

          The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of Pw1; Exts. A1 to A6 and B1. 

          The Forum below on examination of the evidence adduced and the documents produced has observed that the condition to pay premium for 86 years is totally absurd.  It was noted relying on the evidence of the complainant that the provision with respect to the free look period was not brought to his notice.   The Forum has noted that the complainant was virtually trapped.  It was also noted that the opposite parties have  not adduce any rebuttal evidence as such. 

          It was also noted that the agent ought to have explained the conditions of the policy properly to the policy holders and that the  conditions are printed in small print.

          On perusal of the Ext. A1 which contains the conditions as well as the proposal and policy there is a booklet containing more than 20 pages.  The case of the complainant that it was not explained as to the 86 years maturity period appears true. It is the case that he was also not told about the period of request to cancel the policy as 15 days from the date of receipt of policy. The same  also appears  genuine as nothing has been brought up in the cross examination of Pw1 to discredit his evidence.  Further the failure  on the part of the opposite parties to depose is also relevant.  In these circumstances we find that there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum.  There is no scope for admitting the appeal. 

In the result, the appeals are dismissed in limine.

          The office is directed to forward the L.C.R. to the Forum along with the copy of this order.

 JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU   ;  PRESIDENT

ST