Haryana

Sonipat

91/2014

1. TEJPAL SINGH S/O CHAHI RAM,2. SMT. UMA RANI W/O TEJPAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.,2. M.D. BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

YADVINDER SINGH

07 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.91 of 2014

                                Instituted on:02.04.2014

                                Date of order:07.09.2015

 

1.Tej Pal Singh son of Chahi Ram

2.Smt.Uma Rani wife of Tej Pal Singh, both rs/o H.No.DA/21/2,Sugar Mill, Sonepat.

…Complainants. 

Versus

 

1.Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, SCF No.1, Second Floor, Main Market, Sector 14, Sonepat through its Branch Manager.

2.Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited,  One India Bulls Centre, Tower 1, 15 and 16^th Floor, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone road, Mumbai-400013 through its Managing Director.

 

                                                     …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Yadvinder Singh Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Parveen Rathi Adv. for respondents. 

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainants have filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that complainant no.1 obtained policy no.003246075 from respondent no.1. The complainant no.1 issued a cheque dated 12.7.2012 for Rs.30,000/- in favour of the  company and again the complainant was directed to deposit further sum of Rs.70,000/-  and the complainant issued another cheque dated 18.7.2012 for the said amount in favour of the company.  It was told to the complainant that he would receive back the whole amount with bonus.  But till date, the complainant no.1 has not received any amount paid to the respondents and the respondents’ agent had committed a fraud upon him.  So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that the complainant no.1 had submitted the application for insurance in his own name for BSLI Vision Plan and BSLI Dream Plan for sum assured of Rs.325416/- and Rs.413000/- respectively. The premium in respect of the above insurance policy were assessed for BSLI Vision plan as Rs.30000/- per annum and policy term was 15 years and another application was for BSLI dream plan and policy term was 20 years and premium was assessed as Rs.50,000/-. The policy holder has the option to reconsider his/her decision and can apply for cancellation of the policy within 15 days of receipt of the policy.    But the complainant did not come back in free look period. Neither there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents.  So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the respondents by playing fraud with the complainants has got invested Rs.1 lac and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the complainant no.1 had submitted the application for insurance in his own name for BSLI Vision Plan and BSLI Dream Plan for sum assured of Rs.325416/- and Rs.413000/- respectively. The premium in respect of the above insurance policy were assessed for BSLI Vision plan as Rs.30000/- per annum and policy term was 15 years and another application was for BSLI dream plan and policy term was 20 years and premium was assessed as Rs.50,000/-. The policy holder has the option to reconsider his/her decision and can apply for cancellation of the policy within 15 days of receipt of the policy.    But the complainant did not come back in free look period. Neither there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents.  So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          But we find no force in the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel for the respondents.  From the material produced by the respondents on the file, no where proves that the complainant has ever received the policies in question.   The respondents are utilizing the amount of the complainants and in our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if some directions are given to the respondents. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.90,000/- to the complainants i.e. after deducting 10% amount out of Rs.1,00,000/-.  With these observations and directions, the present complaint stands allowed partly.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 07.09.2015