BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 01^st December 2022

PRESENT

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH: PRESIDENT

Mr. K B SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mrs.M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER

Consumer Complaint No.51/2021

​                                                                                                 ORDER

BY Mrs. M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER

1. This is a complaint filed under Section 47(i) and (ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to direct OP to provide police as per illustration which was assured and promised earlier with correct details and to pay damages at Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation cost.

2. This compliant is received through advocate on 23.07.2021, came to be admitted and ordered notice to OP nos.1 to 10 who failed to participate in the proceedings and they are declared as exparte.

3. In order to prove the case of the complainant submitted affidavit evidence and documents.  After closure of enquiry having heard learned counsel for complainant, we have to decide on the alleged deficiency of service on the part of OPs and to decide on the reliefs to be granted in favour of complainant.

4. It is the case of the complainant that OP1 authorized agent had   explained and illustrated a life insurance policy under Elite Advantage Plan having annual premium payable at Rs.10,45,000/- for a period of 12 years and an authorized agent of OP1 had assured 9.5% returns on investment, believing their words the complainant had purchased policy under Elite Advantage Plan having policy no.508-2830136 commencing from 15.11.2019 to 15.11.2030 from OP10.  Learned counsel submits that OPs promised, assured return at the end of 20 years at Rs.4,28,90,000/- showing in the illustration provided by agent marked as per Ex.C3.  But when the policy received wherein showed lesser figure.  It is shown Rs.2,11,61,021/- as against Rs.4,28,90,000/-, which was informed to the OPs through E-mail and they have replied to the said email as to the error in the policy document issued by the company. However, so far failed to rectify the error.  Hence, complainant had issued legal notice as per Ex.C4.  It was served and they have replied in para-05 “as per its internal policy and in terms of clause-10 of IRDA Regulations, 2017 every policy document sent by the company is accompanied by a forwarding letter which clearly states that in the event that the policy holder is not satisfied with the features or the terms and conditions of the policy, he can withdraw or return the policy within 15 days namely under the ‘Free Look Period’ provision from the date of receipt of policy document. That accordingly the policy document along with copies of all supporting documents were dispatched and duly delivered on 21.11.2019 that the policy document were retained and the Free Look option was not invoked and no revert was received within 15 days alleging any discrepancies, thereby implying that complainant had agreed to whatever information was provided in the proposal form and was also in agreement with policy terms and conditions mentioned in the policy document”.  This reply could be found in Ex.C7.  Learned counsel for complainant submits that immediately after receipt of policy document, it was informed to rectify as per Ex.C3, which was not at all replied by OP Company.  In such circumstances, complainant has to be held withdrawn the policy within 15 days under Free look period provision.  Further to draw an inference that OP being an insurance company, having been served the notice of the complaint, had failed to participate in the complaint proceedings for the reason best known.  In such circumstances, though complainant cannot seek a direction against OPs to rectify as per Ex.C3 to make mention of the final usufruct at Rs.4,28,90,000/- as against OPs Rs.2,11,64,021/-, however has to be held entitled for return of annual premium paid at Rs.10,45,000/- along with interest @ 9.5% p.a. since complainant immediately informed the OP company to rectify the errors which is still pending, given rise to the Commission to drawn an inference, either their agent or OP10 could have informed the policy benefit as per Ex.C10 to the complainant.  In such circumstances, their action has to be held rendering deficiency in service.  In such conclusion, complainant has to be held entitled for damages.  Accordingly, proceed to allow the complaint in part and direct OP1 and OP10 to return Rs.10,45,000/- along with interest @ 9.5% p.a. from the date of receipt till realization and do pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and inconvenience and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation cost within 60 days.

5. Furnish free copy of this order to both parties.

  Lady Member                      Judicial Member                    President *GGH*