Latest news with #UdupiDistrictConsumerDisputesRedressalCommission
The Hindu
7 days ago
- Business
- The Hindu
LIC directed to refund entire investment to an octogenarian for lack of informed consent
The Udupi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently directed the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) to refund ₹15 lakh invested by an octogenarian, as the insurance corporation had failed to obtain informed consent from him before selling the policy. Udupi Human Rights Protection Foundation president Ravindranath Shanbhag told reporters at Udupi on Thursday that 83-year-old Annappa Poojary from Beluru in Kundapura taluk wanted an assured income after selling his property in 2021. Earlier, he was running a business in Hubballi, but returned to his native after suffering a paralytic stroke. After selling the property for livelihood, he contacted an agent of the LIC, Kundapura branch, to invest the sale proceeds of ₹30 lakh to earn interest. The agent advised him to invest in 'Pradhan Mantri Vaya Vandana Yojana' (PMVVY), a subsidised scheme for senior citizens. Mr. Poojary invested the entire sum with LIC on the condition that he could withdraw the amount if needed. He received two policies for ₹15 lakh each on September 6, 2021, but was unable to read the terms and conditions as they were in English. Upon checking his bank passbook months later, Mr. Poojary noticed that the first deposit earned ₹9,250 in interest, while the second earned only ₹6,519 per month for the same amounts. The agent failed to answer his queries. As the combined interest was insufficient to cover his expenses, including treatment for Parkinson's disease, he wanted to surrender the second policy. To his shock, LIC informed him that the surrender value was ₹10,73,412 after 16 months. Dr. Shanbhag said that Mr. Poojary approached the foundation after making many failed attempts to have his investment refunded. The foundation initiated a case before the Consumer Commission in Udupi, which on May 21, 2025, directed the LIC to refund Mr. Poojary's entire investment along with ₹20,000 towards compensation for mental agony and legal expenses. While the first policy was issued under PMVVY, the second one was issued under LIC's Jeevan Akshay Scheme, which had different terms and conditions and a lower interest rate. Neither the LIC nor the LIC agent explained this to Mr. Poojary, Dr. Shanbhag said.
Time of India
7 days ago
- Health
- Time of India
Insurance firm told to refund Rs 15 lakh to 83-year-old Udupi man misled on policy, additional Rs 20,000 for mental harassment
Representative Image UDUPI: The Udupi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered an insurance company to refund Rs 15 lakh to a senior citizen and pay an additional Rs 20,000 as compensation for mental harassment and legal expenses. Dr Ravindranath Shanbhag, President of the Human Rights Protection Foundation (HRPF), Udupi, told reporters on Thursday that Annappa Poojary, 83, a resident of Belur in Kundapur taluk, used to run a business in Hubballi for his livelihood. After suffering a paralytic stroke 15 years ago, he returned to his hometown and began living with his wife. Although he had children, they were not financially capable of supporting their parents, forcing Poojary to sell his property in Kundapur. After the sale, he decided to deposit the proceeds of Rs30 lakh in fixed deposits, intending to live off the interest income. When Poojary consulted an insurance agent, he was advised to invest the amount in the "Pradhan Mantri Vaya Vandana Yojana" (PMVVY), a subsidised scheme for senior citizens. T he agent assured him that the scheme offered higher returns and allowed premature withdrawal in case of emergencies. Trusting the agent, Poojary invested his entire Rs30 lakh under the condition that he would be able to withdraw the amount if needed. Soon after, he received two policies of Rs15 lakh each. Being illiterate, Poojary and his wife could not read the policy documents, which were in English, and relied solely on the agent's assurances. Months later, when Poojary checked his passbook, he noticed that the first deposit earned Rs9,250 in interest, while the second earned only Rs 6,519. When questioned, the agent failed to provide a proper explanation. Already battling paralysis, Poojary was also diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. He frequently had to travel 45 km to Manipal for treatment. The combined interest of around Rs 15,000 from both deposits was insufficient to meet his medical and living expenses. He decided to withdraw the lower-interest policy and repeatedly contacted the insurance company's office and the agent. Receiving no response, he formally requested the surrender of one of the policies on January 11, 2023. He was shocked to discover that the policy, purchased on September 6, had a surrender value of only Rs10,73,412 after 16 months, meaning he would lose Rs4,26,588. He claimed he was never informed about the massive penalty for premature withdrawal. He then sought assistance from the HRPF, Udupi. The foundation guided him to file a complaint with the Udupi District Consumer Commission. Shanbhag said the company argued that the first policy was under the PMVVY, while the second was under a different plan. They claimed the policyholder had a 15-day 'free-look' period to cancel the policy but failed to do so. However, the company could not produce any evidence that these terms were ever explained to the illiterate Poojary couple, he added.
