M.THANIKACHALAM, J. - (1.) The opposite parties 1 and 2, in CC.No.451/2009, on the file of District Forum, Coimbatore, are the appellants, though the in the causetitle, 3rd opposite party name is also mentioned, since exonerated, even as per the memo filed by the complainant.
(2.) Facts unavoidably necessary for the disposal of the case, briefly as follows: The complainant, believing the representation of the 2nd opposite party, had taken a unit linked insurance policy "unit +2 regular", as even suggested by the 3rd opposite party. As per the illustration chart, given to the complainant, he has to pay 3 annual premium of Rs.3 lakhs each, and thereafter he has to pay the reduced premium of Rs.24000/- annually, for the life covered and the assured amount being Rs.1.20 crores.
(3.) Further the complainant believing the commercial speech of the opposite parties, who had practiced unfair trade practice, taking the policy, paid the premium for 3 years, amounting to Rs.9 lakhs, and thereafter when he tendered the reduced premium of Rs.24000/-, not accepted. When questioned, the 2nd opposite party had admitted the false and misleading representation, as well as the mistake committed by them, regarding the rule, decreasing the premium. Therefore, the complainant lodged a complaint to the Insurance Ombudsman, who had also refused to reduce the premium. The 1st opposite party denied their liability on false allegations, dishonoring the illustration given by its officers. Therefore, the complainant had issued a legal notice, alongwith cheque for Rs.24000/-, being the annual premium, requesting to accept the same, which was returned, which could be considered as negligence, as well as deficiency in service, proceeded by unfair trade practice, in view of the fact that the opposite parties have gone back on their representation. The complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.9 lakhs, with interest as well as compensation for mental agony at Rs.5 lakhs. Hence the complaint.;