DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA,J. - (1.) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 15.07.2011 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Jalpaiguri in Case No. 19/2011, by which the case has been dismissed on contest against the OP without cost, the Complainant thereof has preferred this appeal.
(2.) THE case of the Complainant is that he invested some money in the Unit Linked Pension Policy Scheme of the OP and paid Rs.2,50,000/ - on 03.01.2008, being Policy No. 11502119. As he suffered financial crunch, he requested the OP by a letter dated 18.03.2009 to reduce the half yearly payment and accordingly the OP reduced the same to Rs.65,000/ - to be paid half yearly, and accordingly he paid Rs.1,30,000/ - being the half yearly investment for the month of July, 2008 and January, 2009. Subsequently, the OP again reduced the half yearly investment to Rs.35,000/ -, which was paid for the second half of 2009 on 25.11.2009. Thereafter, he paid the reduced half yearly investment of Rs.10,000/ - each for the two halves of 2010. Accordingly, he paid a total sum of Rs.4,35,000/ - to the OP. But, the OP was not fair in maintaining proper account of the money paid by him. Being dissatisfied, he demanded Fund Value Statement at different times. The OP has illegally, arbitrarily shown in the statement dated 28.10.2010 that on 21.07.2008, the lapsed amount is Rs.1,47,368.22 and on 20.07.2009, the lapsed amount is Rs.1,33,476.22. In fact, the amount paid by him having been invested in equity based fund, there is no question of lapsetion of the investment made in the "Growth Fund" and he is the owner of the fund held by the OP on his behalf. The period during which money was illegally kept as lapsed money or illegally kept idle, he suffered financial loss and debarred from the increased fund value. The OP illegally deducted Rs.1,53,041.25 towards Miscellaneous Charges, which it cannot do, which is for wrongful gain and illegal misappropriation of his money. Further, the OP illegally deducted the Component Charges. But, on 28.01.2011, he received an envelope through a courier service and found a cheque amounting to Rs.1,98,894/ - against the total payment of Rs.4,35,000/ - without any explanation or forwarding letter. So, he visited the office of the OP, but its Staff or Branch Manager could not clarify. Thus, he became totally dissatisfied due to the tricky activity of the OP and lost trust upon it, and he submitted the cheque with his Banker for encashment and informed the OP that it is being encahsed on protest. So, for such deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the case.
(3.) ON the other hand, the case of the OP is that the complaint is not at all maintainable either in law or on facts of this case or in its present form, and that the Complainant is not a consumer because his policy has been cancelled and money has already been paid to him. It is stated that their officials had made proper explanation about the terms and conditions, benefits, features and considerations and the Complainant had submitted his proposal only after having been duly convinced about the same. It is also stated by way of confirmation that in the statement dated 28.10.2010, the amounts were shown as lapsed as on such dates, as the policy was actually lapsed because of non -payment of the due amount in time, and the money shown idle for a considerable period because policy got lapsed and till the date of revival, the amount was lying in suspense account. Further, there would be charges against reduction of premium which are solely at the discretion of the Insurance Company, which have been deducted under the heading "Miscellaneous Charges". A cheque amounting to Rs.1,98,894/ was sent to the Complainant because the policy got paid up/cancelled and thus the fund value cheque was sent to him. In such premises, the complaint is not maintainable having no deficiency in service and no cause of action and harassment, etc., was meted out to the Complainant, but rather the OP tried its best to help the Complainant. It is to be considered if the impugned order suffers from any kind of anomaly as to the facts and in law so as to make an interference therein in this appeal. Decision with reasons.;