O R D E R
By Sri. C.T. Sabu, President :
Facts of the Case :
Complainant a retired Asst. General Manager of a Private Sector Bank had taken a “Met Smart Plans” policy from the opposite parties Life Insurance Company Ltd., Policy No.00287852 was issued on 28/03/2007. Annual premium was Rs.1,00,000/- complainant had remitted three instalment till 28/03/2009. Thus a total remittance was Rs.3 lakhs. As per the terms and conditions of the policy sent a surrender request on 22/10/2013 and based on the request a sum of Rs.2,54,016/- was refunded through NEFT making the complainant believe that the same amount was the outstanding balance amount. The surrender confirmation letter was also given very late which shows that the surrender value was Rs.5,97,920.39 against the holding of total units of Rs.22,268.16944 of NAV of Rs.26.85090. It is alleged by the complainant that there is no transparency under the veil of corporate technicalities policies and circulation schemes and in fact defrauding the ordinary customers.
2) Aggrieved by the acts of the opposite parties, two registered letters were sent, no reply was received from them. Thereafter a lawyer notice was sent on 23/04/2015. It was replied stating that the fund value was wrongly shown as 5,97,925.39 instead of Rs.2,54,016.20 by mistake complainant reminds that the opposite party was not pleased to mention the NAV and units allowed in the reply and further explains that NAV when multiplied by units gives the fund value is a common knowledge to the corporate world. The surrender and confirmation of surrender of policy extended from 22/10/13 to 06/11/13. The complainant has not received the revised surrender confirmation letter as stated in the reply notice. As stated, rectification is not allowed under law to cover fraudulent transactions and unfair trade practices. As further alleged the malafide acts of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practices and deficiency in service. Even after deducting Rs.44,944/- as penalty and other charges this complainant is legally entitled to receive the balance outstanding net surrender value Rs.2,98,960/- with 12% interest for compensation for hardships and costs.
3) It is thus prayed that necessary directions may be given to the opposite parties to pay the balance outstanding net surrender value of Rs.2,98,960/- with 12% interest from 22/10/13 the date of surrender along with Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- cost allowing the complaint.
4) Admitted the case. Issued notice to opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared before the Commission and filed version through counsel. Besides categorical denial opposite parties states that the proposal form was filled up voluntarily after fully understanding the terms & conditions of the policy by the complainant. The policy was also duly issued to the complainant. It comprises of policy schedule, terms and conditions and also a welcome letter. Complainant had remitted only three instalments of premium about three lakh rupees, only till 28/03/2009. However he failed to renew the policy after three remittance since 28/03/2010. If not renewed, the policy will move to discontinuance status as per terms and conditions agreed by the complainant.
5) Two times the complainant had requested for surrendering the policy (on 29/09/2012 and 21/11/2012). The above surrender requests could not be processed due to his own telephonic intervention for continuing the policy.
6) In the month of March 2013, as stated by the opposite party the complainant opted for the cover continuous option and on 16/08/2013 complainant requested for fund switching to the protector fund. Further on 23/08/2013 complainant again requested for fund switching to multiplier funds.
7) Finally the complainant given a request for surrender of the policy which was allowed and a sum of Rs.2,54,016.20 was transferred to his account through NEFT. However due to some technical constraints a surrender conformation letter mentioning wrong fund value amount of Rs.5,97,920.39 was sent to the complainant. However the same was rectified by the opposite party and reversed surrender letter correcting the fund value as Rs.2,54,016.20/- was sent to the complainant.
8) Since the revised surrender letter has already been sent by the opposite party there is no deficiency in service and no liability to pay any relief or compensation. All other allegations are denied. Hence the complaint be dismissed with cost.
9) Then the case posted for evidence. The points for consideration are the following.
a) Is there any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from
the side of opposite parties ?
b) If yes what are the reliefs and costs ?
10) Complainant’s documents are marked as Exts. P1 to P7. Ext. P1 is the Surrender Confirmation letter dtd. 06/11/13; Ext. P2 is the Catalogue of Smart Plus Policy; Ext. P3 is the copy of the Legal Notice; Ext. P4 is the A/D postal card; Ext. P5 is the Postal Receipts; Ext. P6 is the Reply Notice dtd. 04/05/15; Ext. P7 is the Email dtd. 20/10/16 sent by the complainant. From the side of opposite parties no documents were filed in time. Documents belatedly produced were rejected.
11) Appreciation of Evidence :
We have examined proof affidavit and documents produced by the complainant also the pleading as traversed in the version filed by the opposite parties.
12) We are convinced that there is a genuine cause of action. Ext. P6 is the Reply Notice sent by the opposite parties to the complainant. It is admitted that there was a mistake in sending an erroneous surrender confirmation letter mentioning wrong fund value calculation of Rs.5,97,920.39 instead of Rs.2,54,016.20/-. Opposite party has onus to prove that it is really a mistake based on proven facts. Even if it is proved that it is a genuine mistake the opposite party cannot escape from liability to refund the balance. Opposite party has only pleaded but not proved that it is only a mistake.
13) As rightly held in LIC Vs. T. Balaiah Chodari (2004) 1 CPJ 67 NC liability can be fastened on company for clerical mistake or typographical error which resulted in non mentioning of the deferred date on the policy due to inadvertence or oversight. It is seen that no contra evidence was submitted by the opposite parties to convince the Commission that opposite parties are not entitled to pay any relief as claimed by the complainant.
We are inclined to hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
14) Relief and cost :
We allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the balance amount with 12% from the date of petition within 30 days from the receipt of the order. No order as to cost. Complaint allowed accordingly.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 30th day of December 2020.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja S. Dr.K.Radhakrishnan Nair C. T. Sabu
Member Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext. P1 Surrender Confirmation letter dtd. 06/11/13
Ext. P2 Catalogue of Smart Plus Policy
Ext. P3 copy of the Legal Notice
Ext. P4 A/D postal card
Ext. P5 Postal Receipts
Ext. P6 Reply Notice dtd. 04/05/15
Ext. P7 Email dtd. 20/10/16 sent by the complainant.
Id/- President
