Thiruvananthapuram District Commission Holds Reliance Nippon Insurance Liable For Failure To Provide Promised FD Services
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala) bench of Sri P.V. Jayarajan (President), Mrs Preetha G. Nair (Member) and Mr Viju V.R. (Member) held 'Reliance Nippon Insurance' liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to provide the promised Fixed Deposit (FD) Scheme to the Complainant and for changing the terms of the...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala) bench of Sri P.V. Jayarajan (President), Mrs Preetha G. Nair (Member) and Mr Viju V.R. (Member) held 'Reliance Nippon Insurance' liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to provide the promised Fixed Deposit (FD) Scheme to the Complainant and for changing the terms of the scheme unilaterally.
Brief Facts:
Reliance Nippon Insurance (“RNI”) contacted the Complainant, offering a Fixed Deposit (“FD”) scheme for Rs. 1 Lakh for 3 years with 12% interest. The Complainant initially refused to accept the offer as he was already receiving a 12% interest rate from a cooperative society. Therefore, RNI offered an additional life insurance benefit for the Complainant's granddaughter, if she was 18 years old. The Complainant accepted the offer and promised a cheque for Rs. 1 Lakh to RNI for the FD scheme.
After 40 days, he received an insurance policy instead of the promised FD certificate. The policy required annual payments of Rs. 1 Lakh for 7 years. The Complainant tried to reach out to the representative of RNI, but her address was untraceable. The Complainant then visited RNI's branch office, where the manager kept him waiting for three days. The Complainant discovered that the terms did not match the original proposal. The promised benefits, such as health insurance for his wife and a life policy for himself, were missing. Further, his granddaughter's age was also incorrect in the policy. Furthermore, the 2nd instalment of Rs. 1 Lakh was deducted from his account without authorization.
Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (“District Commission”). RNI failed to appear before the District Commission. Therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte.
Observations of the District Commission:
The District Commission observed that RNI did not provide any documents to challenge the evidence presented by the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant's contentions remained unchallenged and credible. It further found that RNI engaged in both deficiency of service and unfair trade practices by failing to deliver the promised services. The Complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss due to RNI's actions.
Therefore, the District Commission directed RNI to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,500/- for litigation costs to the Complainant.
Case Title: K Aravindakshan Pillai vs Reliance Nippon Insurance
Case No.: Complaint Case No. CC/660/2023
Advocate for the Complainant: None (Complainant in person)
Advocate for the Opposite Party: None (Ex-parte)
Date of Decision: 09.10.2024