Haryana

Sonipat

CC/89/2015

H.M. MUDGIL S/O O.P. MUDGIL - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. SHRI RAJESH SAROHA,2. MR. MITTAL C/O RAHUL WALIA,3. SHRI MALAY GHOS - Opp.Party(s)

24 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

             

 

                             Complaint No.89 of 2015

                             Instituted on:17.03.2015

                             Date of order:25.02.2016

 

HM Mudgil Adv. son of Shri OP Mudgil, r/o 211 L  Model Town, Sonepat.

 

…Complainant.       

Versus

 

1.Reliance Life Ins. 2^nd Floor, Pawan Mega Mall, Atlas road, Sonepat.

2.Reliance Life Insurance Co. GT road, Panipat.

3.Sh. Malay Ghosh, Executive Director and President Relieace Regulatory Development Authority, 3^rd Floor, Prisrama Bhawan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad.

                                                …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

 

 Sh. Joginder Kuhar Advocate for respondents no.1&2.

          Reply on behalf of respondent no.3 was received by post.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President. 

          Prabha Wati-Member.

          D.V. Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint as per complainant are that the complainant has put a board that half portion of the first floor and complete second floor was open to rent.  The respondent no.1 approached the respondent that he can get half portion of first floor and complete second floor for Reliance Life if the complainant gets policy of life insurance from Reliance Group.  The complainant agreed to get the policy of insurance from reliance group through respondent no.1 and the complainant has paid Rs.20,000/- thrice i.e. on 3.1.2011, 5.7.2011 nd 2.1.2012.  Further the complainant has paid Rs.80,000/- through respondent no.2 i.e. Rs.20,000/- on 26.9.2012, 7.11.2012 and Rs.40,000/- on 30.1.2013.    The respondent no.2 had assured that if the complainant get the pension scheme he will get an amount of Rs.1350/- per month.  But inspite of their assurance, till today the respondent no.1 and 2 have failed to provide any services to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondent no.1 and 2 appeared through their respective counsel and have filed their joint reply, whereas reply on behalf of respondent no.3 was filed by post vide diary no.146 dated 13.5.2015.

          In reply, the respondents no.1 and 2 have submitted that an application no.C-5962144 was received in the office of respondent no.1 and 2 and on the basis of the same, the respondents no.1 and 2 have issued policy noi.18332662 on 30.12.2010 for the policy term 10years and policy paying term of 10 years for the basic sum assured of Rs.2,68,530/- for which the life assured was to make half yearly installment of Rs.20,142.43 paise. 

          Similarly, another application no.D-3060105 was received and on the basis of the same, the respondents no.1 and 2 have issued the policy no.50403616 on 24.9.2012 for the policy term of 15 years and policy paying term of 5 years for the basic sum assured of Rs.82000/- for which the life assured was to make the yearly installment of Rs.19688.62 paise. 

          Similarly, another application no.D-5067353 was received and on the basis of the same, the respondents no.1 and 2 have issued the policy no.50499812 on 5.11.2012 for the policy term of 15 years and policy paying term of 5 years for the basic sum assured of Rs.82000/- for which the life assured was to make the yearly installment of Rs.19688.62 paise. 

          Similarly, another application no.D-5067370 was received and on the basis of the same, the respondents no.1 and 2 have issued the policy no.50716727 on 28.1.2013 for the policy term of 15 years and policy paying term of 5 years for the basic sum assured of Rs.1,63,000/- for which the life assured was to make the yearly installment of Rs.38978.39 paise.  Every policy documents were sent by the company to the policy holders by a forwarding letter with the terms and conditions of the policy that he/she can withdraw/return the policy within 15 days i.e. under freelook period, but the life assured never approached the respondents no.1 and 2 for any discrepancy.  However, request for cancellation of the policy was received in the context to all the four policies, but the respondent no.1 and 2 declined as the complainant has failed to apply for cancellation of the policy within 15 days of free look period.  All the allegations leveled by the complainant against the respondents no.1 and 2 are wrong and false and there is no deficiency in service on the part of their part and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          The respondent no.3 in his reply has submitted that the dispute is between the complainant and Reliance Life Ins. Co. and IRDAI has no role to play in the matter.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 has submitted that every policy documents were sent by the company to the policy holders by a forwarding letter with the terms and conditions of the policy that he/she can withdraw/return the policy within 15 days i.e. under freelook period, but the life assured never approached the respondents no.1 and 2 for any discrepancy.  However, request for cancellation of the policy was received in the context to all the four policies, but the respondent no.1 and 2 declined as the complainant has failed to apply for cancellation of the policy within 15 days of free look period.  All the allegations leveled by the complainant against the respondents no.1 and 2 are wrong and false and the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation since there is no deficiency in service on the part of their part.

          The complainant in person has submitted that till today, the respondent no.1 and 2 in connivance with the Reliance Company, has failed to honour their assurance and commitments  whereas the complainant has good faith upon them.  But the respondents no.1&2 2 have rendered deficient services to the complainant.

5.        After hearing both the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully, we are of the view that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant has deposited Rs.1,40,000/- in total with the respondents no.1 and 2. The respondents no.1 and 2 have failed to produce any document which may go to prove that they have issued all the four policies to the complainant.   However, in our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if some directions are given to the respondents no.1 and 2 to refund the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- to the complainant. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents no.1 and 2 to refund the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- (Rs.one lac forty thousand) to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization.  The respondent no.1 and 2 are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Rs.five thousands) for rendering deficient services, for unnecessary harassment and mental agony.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

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

          File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)           (Nagender Singh)                    Member, DCDRF,             Member, DCDRF        President, DCDRF,

Sonepat.             Sonepat.             Sonepat.

 

ANNOUNCED 25.02.2016