DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 29th day of July 2023
Filed on: 03/07/2020
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C NO. 174/2020
COMPLAINANT
Baiju GeorgeP.J, S/o.Peru George, Puliparambil House, Old Theatre Road, Nettur P.O., Ernakulam-682 040
Vs.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Aegon Life Insurance Co.Ltd., Building No.3, 3rd Floor, Unit No.1, Nesco IT Park, Western Express High Way Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400 063. Rep by It's Authorised Representative
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant, who worked as a contractor, had taken five policies from the opposite party. After four years, changes were made to the policies, leading to a partial withdrawal that resulted in a loss for the complainant. The manager responsible for their policies left the country, and the new manager claimed that all the money was lost. The complainant took legal action, but the office in Ernakulam was closed, and it was revealed that the entire office in Kerala was shut down.
Out of the five policies, the opposite party only provided payment for four policies, even though the amounts received were reduced. There is an ongoing complaint regarding policy number 120913638299, for which the complainant paid Rs. 1 lakh, but no payment has been received for 8 years. The complainant is demanding the opposite party to pay them Rs. 1 lakh along with interest. The complaint seeks compensation for the unpaid policy and aims to recover the premium paid with interest. The situation has caused financial distress and uncertainty for the complainant.
2) Notice
Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party. The opposite party received the notice but did not file their version. Consequently, the opposite party is set ex-parte.
3) Evidence
The complainant had filed a proof affidavit and 2 documents.
Exhibit A-1: Copy of policy schedule
Exhibit A-2: Copies of email communications with opposite parties.
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
We have also noticed that the Commission issued a notice to the opposite party in response to the complaint. However, the opposite party received the notice but failed to submit their version. As a result, the opposite party has been declared ex-parte. The complainant had produced 2 documents and a proof affidavit. But the opposite party did not make any attempt to appear in the case and participate in the above proceedings before this commission and did not make any attempt to set aside the ex-prate order passed against it. It was further stated that this illegal, arbitrary, and unjustified act of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service, indulgence in unfair trade practice, and caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
The opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them. Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite party. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant as against the opposite party. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
The opposite party had inadequately performed the service as contracted with the complainant and hence there is a deficiency in service, negligence, and failure on the part of the opposite party to provide the Complainant desired service which in turn has caused mental agony and hardship, and financial loss, to the Complainant. The aforesaid acts of the opposite party would stand to show their callous attitude, utter negligence, and deficiency of service, for which they are solely answerable.
The opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for deficiency in rendering service and also for immense physical harassment and mental agony.
We find the issue Nos. (I), (II), (III), and (IV) are in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite party. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The Opposite Party shall refund sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the complainant .
- The Opposite Party shall pay Rs 50000/- towards compensation for the deficiency of service committed by the opposite party, and for the mental agony and physical hardships sustained by the complainant.
- The Opposite Party shall also pay the complainant Rs. 5000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
The above-mentioned directions shall be complied with by Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount ordered vide (i) and (ii) above shall attract interest @9% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this 29th day of July 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
Assistant Registrar
Appendix
Complainant’s Evidence
Exhibit A-1: Copy of policy schedule
Exhibit A-2: Copies of email communications with opposite parties.
