DIST. CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESAL  COMMISSION

NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.

C.C. No./34/2023      

Date of Filing                                   Date of Admission               Date of Disposal

  08.02.2023                                                       27.02.2023                      22.08.2024

P R E S E N T                        :- Sri Daman Prosad Biswas………President.

                                                :- Sri.  Abhijit Basu………………. Member.

JUDGMENT /FINAL ORDER

            Complainant above named filed this complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the aforesaid Opposite Parties praying for direction to

_______________________________________________________________________

pay full amount which the Complainant has paid from 12/03/2008 to 12/03/2022 excluding the money which already paid by the O.P along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of Commencement of all the policies, compensation amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-, cost of the case and other reliefs.

            He alleged that on 12/03/2008 he purchased three policies from the O.Ps vide no. 0066450536, 0066471594 and 0066825545 for Rs. 3,00,000/- each with yearly premium of Rs. 12,000/- each and maturity date of all the policies are 13/03/2028. Complainant has paid the premium of aforesaid three policies till 12/03/2022.

            Subsequently the representative of the O.P asked the Complainant to close those policies because the fund value of the policies are reducing day by day. Complainant solicited clarification from the O.Ps on 25/11/2019 by writing a letter but did not get any fruitful result. Thereafter, Complainant referred the matter to the Ombudsmen.

            Subsequently Complainant on 15/03/2022 went to the office of O.P No. 3 to deposit premium of aforesaid three policies and for change of address. Matter was enquired. Relationship Manager Mr. Kausar Ali visited the house of the Complainant and told that unless and until the policies are converted to the new scheme, Complainant would not get desired value.

On 09/04/2022 Complainant received new policy which does not tally the version of Relationship Manager in any point wherein the maturity period was shown as 27/03/2058.

Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./

: :  2  : :

       C.C. No./34/2023

On receiving the original policy Complainant immediately wrote a letter to the grievance machinery on 09/04/2022. Complainant submitted the original policy along with necessary documents to Shovabajar Branch for cancellation within free lock period on 12/04/2022. Thereafter, Complainant received Rs. 1,30,000/- for each policy whereas Complainant paid Rs. 1,80,000/- in each policy. Complainant sustained loss of Rs. 50,000/- from the deposited amount and also sustained loss the interest of the deposited amount. Hence, the Complainant filed this case praying for aforesaid relief.

Subsequently Complainant by filing a petition prayed for amendment of the petition of complaint and contended that he got Rs. 50,000/- less in each policy. He prayed for sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- which the O.Ps have paid less than the actual premium amount, compensation amounting to Rs. 2,40,000/- for all three policies @ Rs. 80,000/- each. Compensation amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-.

O.P No. 1 & 3 appeared in this record and filed W/V and denied the entire allegations contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable, case is bad for want of cause of action, case barred by the principle of estoppel, waiver and acquisition, case is barred by law of limitation and this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the present case.

They further contended that the aforesaid three policies were unit link policy and surrender amount is determined on the basis of market value of the fund after deducting the standard policy charges as per policy terms and conditions and for that reason Complainant got the aforesaid amount as surrendered value of the policy they prayed for dismissal of the case.

O.P No. 2 submitted W/V in this record by post. One of the representative of the O.P No. 2 namely Rajan Kumar executed the same but he did not file any document in support of the fact that O.P No. 2 authorized him to file the W/V. Accordingly we failed to understand as to how Mr. Rajan Kumar submitted W/V on behalf of O.P No. 2. Moreover no affidavit has been annexed with the said W/V.

On perusal of the said document we find that O.P No. 2 contended that Complainant has no authority to file this complaint against him and Complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the O.P No. 2.

Decisions with Reasons:-

We have heard the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant and Ld. Advocate for the O.P 1 & 3 at length.

Perused the petition of complaint, W/V filed by the O.P 1 & 3, affidavit-in-chief filed by Complainant, questionnaire filed by the O.P 1 & 3, answers filed by the Complainant, BNA filed by the Complainant and BNA filed by the O.P 1 & 3, documents filed by the Complainant and documents filed by the O.P 1 & 3.

Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./

: :  3  : :

       C.C. No./34/2023

It is admitted position that Complainant purchased the aforesaid three policies from the O.P 1 & 3 and subsequently those three policies were closed by the O.P 1 & 3 and O.P 1 & 3 paid the surrendered value in favour of the Complainant.

Complainant alleged that he paid premium @ Rs. 12,000/- per year and paid the same for 15 years and by this way he paid Rs. 1,80,000/- in each policy but O.P 1 & 3 granted Rs. 1,30,000/- in favour of the Complainant in each policy and by this way Complainant got less Rs. 50,000/- in each policy. He suffered loss of Rs. 50,000/- in each policy and suffered the interest of each policies.

O.P 1 & 3 in their W/V stated that aforesaid three policies were linked with unit link policy and surrendered amount is determined on the basis of market value and after deducting the standard policy charges and for that reason Complainant got less amount than the actual paid amount.

We have carefully gone through the documents filed by the Complainant at the time of filing of this complaint. We have also carefully gone through the documents filed by the O.P 1 & 3 at the time of filing of W/V.

But O.P 1 & 3 failed to established that Complainant was agreed with the terms and conditions that aforesaid policies would be linked with unit link policy. O.P 1 & 3 also failed to established that Complainant would get the surrendered amount as per market value at the time of surrender of the policy.

O.P 1 & 3 also failed to submit the details of accounts by which surrender value was assessed @ Rs. 1,30,000/- for each policy.

O.P 1 & 3 also failed to submit the accounts sheet in respect of the aforesaid three policies so that this Commission can understand that under what circumstances surrender value was assessed to Rs. 1,30,000/- in each policy.

In this context we have carefully gone through the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahakali Sujata Vs. The Branch Manager Future Generali India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 3821 of 2024).

In this context we have also carefully gone through another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in J S K Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 7630 of 2022).

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and materials on record and keeping in mind the aforesaid decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we find that aforesaid act of the O.P 1 & 3 are nothing but deficiency in service.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and materials on record we also find that Complainant failed to established any case against the O.P No. 2 and accordingly we are of the firmed view that Complainant is not entitled to any relief against O.P No. 1 & 2.

Contd. To Page No. 4 . . . ./

: :  4  : :

       C.C. No./34/2023

On perusal of record we find that Complainant is the consumer and O.P 1 & 3 are the service provider.

Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that Complainant has able to established his grievance by sufficient documents beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, Complainant is entitled to reliefs as per his prayer.

In the result, present case succeeds.

Hence,

                        It is

                                    Ordered:-

That the present case be and the same vide no. CC/34/2023 is

dismissed on contest against O.P No. 2 and allowed on contest against the O.P 1 & 3 with cost of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) to be paid by the O.P 1 & 3 in favour of the Complainant.

O.P No. 1 & 3 jointly or severally are directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) each for aforesaid three (03) policies i.e. Rs. 1,50,000/- (one lakh fifty thousand) in favour of the Complainant preferably within 45 days from this day failing which Complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.

O.P No. 1 & 3 jointly or severally are further directed to pay 9% interest over the amount which has been deposited by the Complainant in the aforesaid three (03) policies from the date of receipt of amount to till the date of payment preferably within 45 days from this day failing which the Complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.

O.P No. 1 & 3 jointly or severally are directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) as compensation in favour of the Complainant for his harassment, mental pain and agony preferably within 45 days from this day failing which Complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.

Dictated and Corrected by me

President

Member                                                                                                        President