West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/165/2015

1. Sri Sitanghsu Ganguly, S/O- Late Harendra Nath Ganguly. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. The Chief Executive Officer, AEGON Religare Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gouranga Gupta Roy.

09 Dec 2015

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,

AMANTRAN BAZAR COMPLEX, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA - 144

 

C.C. CASE NO. ___165  OF ___2015____

 

DATE OF FILING : 2.4.2015     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  09.12. .2015__

 

Present                         :   President       :   Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :  Smt.  Sharmi Basu                                  

 

COMPLAINANT                   :  1. Sri Sitangshu Ganguly, s/o late Harendra Nath Ganguly

2. Sriman Subhrojit Ganguly,s/o Sitangshu Ganguly

Both of Tollygunge, Kolkata – 29.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                                :     1. The Chief Executive Officer, AEGON Religare Life Insurance

     Co. Ltd. Building no.3, Third Floor, Unit no.1, Nesco IT Park.

     2.    AEGON Religare Life Insurance Co. ltd. Second Floor, 57/1,

    K.N. Sen Lane, P.S. Kasba, Kolkata – 42.

    3.   Mr. Chiradeep Sen, at Kotak Securtities Ltd. 1, Shakespeare Sarani, 1^st Floor, Kolkata – 71 and also at 10, Monoshstalla Lane, (next to Green Plaza Building), Khidirepore, Kolkata – 23.

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

            Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member

            The petition of complaint made under section 12 of the C.P Act ,1986 has been filed by Subrata Das against the O.Ps on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of  the O.Ps .

             It is the short case of the complainant that Complainant was in search of an investment agency where he could have a short term invest of Rs.1 lac for expenses of education of his son and  by the way he met Mr. Chiradeep Sen who claimed himself to be an accredited agent of O.P-1  and suggested to opt for the same . It is also made clear that premium of the policy to be paid to the O.P for one time only for the entire policy period and the premium amount would be of Rs.99,990/-  and the said policy could be opt to cancel if not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy plan and the proceeds could be withdrawn  with benefits as applicable after the expiry of six months from the date of the policy. Accordingly complainant no.1 purchased the policy bearing no.140414103399 dated 7.4.2014 and paid Rs.99,990/- . After receiving the Policy Bond the complainant no.1 found that there were lot of  deviations made in the Policy Bond which was full of contradiction with the proposal signed by him and contradictory with the assurance . It was noticed by the complainant that the alleged “Policy Bond” was meant for a term of sixteen years and the annual premium was to be paid at the rate of Rs.99,999/- for another twelve years. It is alleged by the complainant that the proposal form is full of over writing and the proposal form sent by the Insurance Co. with the Policy Bond bears several signatures of the complainant but actually he signed in one place of the proposal form only. Several requests, correspondences followed by lawyer’s notice dated 13.12.2014 for return of the premium amount yielded no result . Hence, this case for refund of the premium amount of Rs.99,990/- , cost and compensation.

 The O.P-1 appears and filed a reply with a prayer for treating the same as his written statement.

The O.P nos.1 and 3 did not appear inspite of service of summon upon them and accordingly the case proceeded exparte against them.

            The O.P-1 in his reply has denied all the allegations leveled against it . The contention of the O.P-1 is that as per IRDA Regulation each policy holder is apprised about the option of Free Look Period of fifteen days through a Welcome Letter sent along with the policy contract document. Under the Free Look Options, if the policyholder finds any discrepancy in the policy terms and conditions sent to him, he may exercise the Free Look option by informing the AILIC’s concerned department in writing . But the complainant did not avail the Free Look Option within the stipulated period . The O.P-1 prays for dismissal of the case.

Points for Decision

1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer or not.
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not.
3. Whether the complainant is eligible to get relief as prayed for partly or fully.

Decision with reasons

            All the points are taken together as they are interlinked.

            This is the case of the complainant against the O.Ps on the allegation of deficiency in service.

            We have considered the  “Reply” of the complainant  filed by the O.P-1 and all the documents filed by both the parties and it appears that admittedly the complainant paid Rs.99,990/- as premium towards the Life Insurance Policy under the O.P nos. 1 and 2 . The complainant has submitted an application for Insurance bearing no.0866738  proposing for Educare Advantage Insurance Plan and the base sum proposed was Rs.8,20,860/- , policy term was 16 years and period of  premium to be paid was 12 years. It is also fact that date of the proposal form was 16.4.2014. The policy was issued on 28.4.2014 and the same was delivered to the complainant on 30.4.2014. It is also beyond doubt that complainant has signed the relevant application where it is clearly mentioned “Declaration- I/(we) declare that the sales literature and illustrations in relation to the product proposed to be purchased by me/us have been provided and explained to me/us and I /we have understood the same”.

It is also appearing from the record  that the O.P informed the complainant about the option of Free Look Period of 15 days through welcome letter sent under Policy Contract Document as per mandate by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA). Under the Free Look Period if the policy holder find any discrepancy in the policy terms sent to him ,he may exercise Free Look option by informing the concerned Department in writing. In the instant case the complainant has not informed anything within the aforesaid Free Look Period of 15 days. The complainant requested the O.Ps to refund the amount of Policy as he did not want to continue the policy after that period on 22.7.2014. Therefore, the crux of the case is whether the O.Ps are liable for deficiency in service as they have not refunded the amount allowing the complainant to cancel the policy.

In this regard, we are relying the judgement of Hon’ble State Commission ,Maharashtra bearing case no.A/11/634  pronounced on 12.10.2012 ,filed by the O.P-1. In this Judgement Hon’ble State Commission ,Maharashtra has been pleased to observe that “The respondent(insured) has singed the proposal Form. When the proposal form is signed, it can be said that the respondent was not aware about the nature of the policy. It is also mentioned by the Hon’ble State Commission, Maharashtra that “While acting under regulation 6(1) in forwarding the policy to the insured, the insurer shall inform by the letter forwarding the policy that he has a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy document to review the terms and conditions of the policy and where the insured disagrees to any of those terms or conditions ,he has the option to return the policy stating the reason for his objection, when he shall be entitled to a refund of the premium paid, subject only to a deduction of a proportionate risk premium for the period or cover and the expenses incurred by the insurer on medical examination of the proposer and stamp duty charges”.

            We cannot over the IRDA regulations and looking the facts of the case it appears that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps .

            We are also highlighting the remarkable judgement of Hon’ble National Commission vide RP no. 555/2011 pronounced on 21.1.2015 .

            Therefore, in light of the above discussion, we have no hesitation to hold that O.Ps have not committed any deficiency in service and the complaint case is dismissed without cost.

            Hence,

                                                                                    Ordered

That the complaint case is dismissed without cost.

 

Let a plain copy of judgement be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rule.

 

 

                                    Member                                                           President

 

 

Dictated and corrected by me

 

 

 

                        Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

 

Ordered

That the complaint case is dismissed without cost.

 

Let a plain copy of judgement be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rule.

 

 

                                    Member                                                           President