Delhi

West Delhi

CC/13/722

Ranbir Singh Grover - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

09 Oct 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                            GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151 Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

                                                                                     Date of institution: 29.11.2013

Complaint Case. No. 722/2013                                     Date of order: 09.10.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Ranbir Singh  Grover , A-30  3^rd  Floor Janta Colony  Shivaji Vihar  New Delhi-110027 .

                                                                                                                         Complainant

VERSUS

 

1. Kotak  Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd.  Koatak Tower, 7^th Floor Zone-4 Building No.21 , Infinity Park  Opp Western  Express High way Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg, Malad  (E)  Mumbai-400097.

 

                                                                                                       Opposite Party No. 1

 

2. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. 31-3C Block, First & Second Floor Community Center Janak Puri New Delhi-110058.

 

        Opposite Party No. 2

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

Sh. Ranbir Singh Grover named above herein the complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act  against Kotak Mahendra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd.  and another herein  after referred  as the opposite parties for directions to the opposite parties to  cancel   insurance  policy   no.  02736346,  refund   Rs. 1,00,000/-   of   the

insurance amount with interest @18% p.a., pay compensation of                          Rs. 1,00,000/- for harassment  and mental torture and pay Rs. 20,000/- as cost of litigation.

 Briefly   case of the complainant is that on persuasion of Ms.  Astha  Sharma  and Mr. Y.P.S Rawat employees  of the opposite parties  the  complainant  took  single  premium  insurance  policy  of the opposite parties against payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- vide cheque dated 31.03.2013 as one time single premium.  They  noted details of the complainant and got his signatures on blank proposal form. 

That due to serious illness  of father  of the complainant   he had to go to Amritsar. On 18.06.2013  he returned after performing  last rites of his father.  In the meantime  the policy documents were  delivered to his neighbour’s  daughter -in-law.  She   also remained out of Delhi for some time and handed over the policy documents to the complainant on 18.06.2013.  The complainant after going through the  policy documents was surprised  to note that against assured single  premium  policy the opposite parties  issued  endowment policy  on premium  of Rs.  1,00,000/-  per annum for ten years.  The complainant on 20.06.2013  wrote a letter to the  opposite parties  with  request   to cancel the  policy  and refund amount of the premium .

 That the opposite party no.2 vide SMS dated 07.07.2013  informed  the complainant  that  his complaint  has been closed. Therefore, the complainant wrote another letter to the opposite parties. The opposite parties vide letter dated 31.08.2013  assured  the complainant that thorough investigation will be conducted.  But the  opposite parties  again vide letter dated 13.09.2013 rejected  request  of the complainant on the ground that the policy was issued  according to  his request  and was delivered  to M.S.Komal  on 22.05.2013 and  fifteen days   from free look period  has already expired.  Thereafter the complainant wrote letters dated 27.09.2013  and  21.10.2013.  But to no effect.  Therefore,  there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in  service on the part of the opposite parties and prayed for directions to the opposite parties to cancel insurance policy no. 02736346, refund Rs. 1,00,000/- of insurance amount with interest @18% p.a., pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for harassment  and mental torture and pay Rs. 20,000/- as cost of litigation.

After notice the opposite  parties  appeared  and filed  reply  contesting the complainant on the grounds that the complaint is  false , frivolous and  vaxatious   and is gross misuse  of process of law.  This  Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint  as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite parties and the complainant did    not   cancel  the policy  within    free  look  period  of  fifteen days.  The

 complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. The complaint does not disclose any cause of action. The complainant  did not exercise his right of cancellation  of the policy  within  15 days of  free look period .  The policy document  is a  contract  between the parties.   The complainant himself opted  for yearly premium for 10 years of insurance policy.  Therefore, the opposite parties issued endowment policy for ten years.  All other allegations of the complaint are vehemently denied and prayed for dismissal  of the complaint.

The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of the opposite  parties  controverting stand of the opposite parties reiterating  his stand  taken in the complaint.

 When Sh. Ranbir Singh Grover complainant was asked to lead evidence he  tendered in evidence  his affidavit narrating facts  of the complaint  and rejoinder he also relied upon  Annexure -1  loan documents ,  Annexure-2  statement of Account, Annexure-3 insurance policy no. 02736346 dated 18.05.2013, Annexure-4 cancellation letter dated 20.06.2013, Annexure-5  acknowledgement  no. 5101,   Annexure-6 letter  for cancellation of policy no. 02736346, Annexure-7 Letter dated 31.08.2013, Annexure-8  Letter dated 13.09.2013, Annexure-9 letter dated 27.09.2013 , Annexure-10 letter dated 03.10.2013 and Annexure-11 letter dated 21.10.2013.

When the opposite parties were asked to lead evidence they tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Shakil Ahmad Sr. Manager  Legal   narrating  facts of their reply.

The parties have also submitted written arguments in support of their  respective version.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.  We have gone through the material available on record carefully and thoroughly.

  Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant  from the complaint, his affidavit and  documents has succeeded  to prove that the complainant approached by Ms.  Astha  Sharma  and Mr. Y.P.S Rawat employees  of the opposite parties .  But  Ms  Astha  Sharma  and Mr. Y.P.S Rawat took his signatures on blank proposal  form  and issued endowment policy on premium of Rs. 1,00,000/-   p.a. for ten years.  He had to go to Punjab on account of serious illness of his father .  He returned from Punjab on 18.06.2013 .  The policy documents were handed over to him  by his neighbor’s daughter-in-law on 18.06.2013. He approached the opposite parties for cancellation of endowment  insurance policy on 20.06.2013   but the opposite parties declined  request of the complainant.   

On the other hand learned counsel for the opposite parties  argued that except  affidavit of the complainant  there is nothing on the record to prove that signatures of the complainant  were obtained  by  Ms  Astha  Sharma  and Mr. Y.P.S Rawat on blank  proposal form and they prepared endowment  policy document on annual installment  of Rs. 1,00,000/- for ten years.   The complainant  even failed to implead   Ms  Astha  Sharma  and Mr. Y.P.S Rawat  as party  who could  submit their reply and in their absence there is  nothing on record  to  prove  that  the complainant  signed   blank  proposal form.

  Admittedly the proposal form alongwith policy documents were                  received by  M.S. Komal on 22.05.2013 and  as per   Annexure -3  Life insurance  policy no. 02736346 dated 18.05.2013 the complainant could get  the insurance policy cancelled  within  fifteen days i.e.  free look period.  But the  complainant  did not exercise his right of cancellation of insurance policy within free look in period.  The policy document is an agreement between the parties and they  are bound  by terms and conditions of the agreement and   after  expiry of fifteen days free look  period the complainant  can not get the insurance policy cancelled.

After  having  heard both the sides  at length  going through  the  record carefully and thoroughly there is nothing on  the record  to prove  that the complainant applied  for single  premium insurance policy.   Whereas  there is sufficient material on the record to prove that the complainant  applied for endowment insurance policy for ten years on annual installment of Rs. 1,00,000/- .  The complainant could get the insurance policy  cancelled within fifteen days free look period from   receipt of the policy documents. The policy documents  were received on 22.05.2013 but he applied for cancellation of the policy on 18.06.2013 much later than fifteen days of free look period.  There is also no cogent and convincing  evidence on the part of the  complainant that he had to go to  Punjab  on account of death of his father  and M.S.Komal  also remained  out of  Delhi for same period.  Before proceeding  further  It  is  worthwhile   to  re-produce  condition  of  free look  period  provided  in Annexure-3 of Life Insurance Policy no.  02736346 dated 18.05.2013 which runs as under :-

            “ In case you are nor agreeable to any of the  provision stated in the Policy, then you have the option of returning the Policy  to us  stating the reasons  thereof within 15 days from the date of the receipt  of the Policy.  The cancellation request should be submitted to your nearest Kotak Life Insurance Branch or sent directly to our Head Office.   On receipt of your letter alongwith the  original Policy document we shall arrange to refund the Premium paid by you after  deducting the proportionate risk Premium =, medical charges if any and stamp duty.   A policy once returned shall not  be  revived, reinstated or restored at any point of time and a new proposal will have to be made for a new Policy. ”

            From bare reading of the above term of free look period the complainant could get insurance policy cancelled with 15 days from receipt  of the policy documents.  But he did not exercise his right for cancellation of the policy with in stipulated  period of  fifteen days provided in the free look period condition of the insurance policy .  Therefore, the complainant  himself  is negligent  and there is no unfair trade practice  and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence there is no merit in the complaint. The same fails  and is hereby dismissed. 

Order pronounced on : 09.10.2017

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

 

                  

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                              ( R.S.  BAGRI )

             MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT