Back
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
PRESENT
MR. K. B. SANGANNAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. DIVYASHREE M. : MEMBER
Appeal No. 1329/2013
|
Mrs. Shireen Singh Parmar Aged about 52 years R/at No. 49/1, Nandidurg Road, Jayamahal Extension, Bangalore 560046 V/s |
……Appellant |
|
1. The Chief Manager (Legal) Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., Godrej Coliseum, 8th Floor Behind Evard Nagar, Sion-Trombay Road, Mumbai 400002 S/o. S.K. Venkataraman R/at No. 19, 1st Street Shantinagar, SM Nagar Post Chennai 600012 Royapettah, Chennai 600014 R2 by Sri. K.N. Mahabaleshwar Rao) |
…Respondents |
O R D E R
BY MR. K. B. SANGANNAVAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by complainant in C.C.No.700/2011 on the file of II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore aggrieved by the order dated 03.08.2013.
- The brief facts of the case are complainant is a house wife has obtained insurance policy from Op No.1 under Pension Balance Fund paying Rs.20.00 lakhs on 17.01.2008. She opted for single premium retirement benefit. However, OP No.1 has deliberately made it regular premium and it was a fraudulent conspiracy between OP Nos.1 to 3. Because of conspiracy OP No.1, compelled to make renewal premium of Rs.1.00 lakh for the policy to remain in force, otherwise complete 100% will be forfeited. Subsequently, the second fraudulent fund switch has occurred on 08.02.2009 from Pension Balance Fund to Pension Bond fund by forging her signature. The impact of the fraudulent transaction was loss of growth of fund value due to un-participation in Bully stock market of the year 2009-10. Had she been invested in Pension Balance Fund its value would have grown manifold to the extent of 19% more than any bond fund. With complete dissatisfaction and mental agony she has paid Rs.1.00 lakh in the month of February 2010 under protest. So in all three years she has paid premium of Rs.22.00 lakhs. On 15.03.2010 caused legal notice on OP No.1 and on 14.07.2010 OP No.1 replied the said legal notice admitting that switch of funds occurred due to oversight. Thereafter, she has surrendered the policy on 07.02.2011 and on surrender she was able to realize only a sum of Rs.17,63,015/-. The conduct of OP in making single payment to regular payment without her consent and not validating the authorized policy holder’s signature while fraudulent transaction occurred and not communicating fictitious fund switch, theft of account holder’s policy details amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the OP is liable to pay Rs.11,11,587/- along with interest at the rate of 12% from 17.01.2008 till payment and to direct OP to pay Rs.5.00 lakhs as compensation for the mental agony caused to her.
- This was contested by OP Nos. 1 and 2, while OP No. 3 has not appeared after service of notice and he has not filed any version.
- OP No.1 has filed its version contending that complicated question of law and facts arise for consideration cannot be decided in the summary proceedings under consumer laws. After furnishing the policy documents it was open to the complainant to cancel the policy within the freelook period and she has not done so because of which she is bound by the terms and conditions of the policy. The policy was issued on 17.01.2008. The investments were made with an intention to get higher returns and as per the proposal form the premium payment term has been duly mentioned as 10 years. On 14.01.2009 she has made application before the OP company for reduction in the premium amount from Rs.20.00 la
