Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/62

Manraj Dhillon - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aegon Life Ins.Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Sood Adv.

15 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 62 dated 30.01.2019.                                                Date of decision: 15.11.2022.

 

Manraj Dhillon C/o. Dhillon Hospital, Opp. Markfed Godown, Malwal Road, Ferozepur (Punjab)-152002.                                                                                                                                                                     ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. The Chairman, Aegon Life Insurance Company Ltd., C/o. Building No.3, 3^rd Floor, Unit No.1, NESCO IT Park, Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063.
2. Mr. Manish Madan, Head-Customer Services, Aegon Life Insurance Company Ltd., C/o. Building No.3, 3^rd Floor, Unit No.1, NESCO IT Park, Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063.                                                                                   …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Amit Sood, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant has purchased online insurance policy from the opposite parties for a sum of Rs.1 Crore on 10.01.2014. At the time of purchase of the policy, all the necessary required documents were submitted and necessary formalities including medical examination were completed. Thereafter, the opposite parties issued a policy braring No.514015364658 at a premium of Rs.8082/- to be paid by the complainant. The complainant has asserted that his date of birth is 06.01.1988 (Sixth January Nineteen Hundred Eighty Eight)  but online Authorized Executive of the opposite parties wrongly mentioned the date of birth to be 01.06.1988 instead of 06.01.1988. This error was brought into notice of the opposite parties on 07.06.2016 and on 10.06.2016. Again the complainant has been sending emails to the opposite parties on 05.02.2018, 09.02.2018, 22.02.2018, 24.02.2018 and 27.02.2018 but the opposite parties failed to acknowledge and rectify the error. Further the complainant submitted a hard copy of the complaint with the office of the opposite parties on 05.01.2018 but of no consequence. The complainant claimed that he was shocked to receive a letter dated 01.03.2018 from the opposite parties in which the opposite parties have demanded an increased premium in the name of rectification of date of birth. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 15.05.2018 to the opposite parties  but of no use. Further the demand of increase in premium for the rectification of date of birth of the complainant amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in consumer service. The complainant has prayed for correction of date of birth in his insurance policy without demanding the illegal increased premium and also compensation/damages to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties but the opposite parties did not appear despite service and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.05.2019. Subsequently, the opposite parties filed application for reconsideration of order dated 23.05.2019. Vide order dated 13.09.2019 the opposite parties were permitted to join the proceedings at the stage of production of evidence by the parties, but without written reply. However, the opposite parties did not lead any formal evidence and absented themselves since 13.04.2022. 

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 copy of adhar card, Ex. C2 copy of legal notice Ex. C3 and Ex. C4 copies of postal receipts, Ex. C5 copy of medical expert report showing date of birth of complainant to be 06.01.1988, Ex. C6 is the policy schedule reflecting date of birth as 01.06.1988, Ex. C7 is the letter dated 01.03.2018 whereby enhanced premium was demanded from the date of next renewal i.e. 10.01.2019, Ex. C8 is the copy of PAN card of the complainant, Ex. C9 letter addressed to Customer Care Department of the opposite parties, Ex. C10 is the pass certificate of ICSE, New Delhi showing actual date of birth dated 06.01.1988, Ex. C11 is the statement o marks, Ex. C12 is the copy of emails and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the counsel for the complainant and also perused and examined the record and following are points of issue which require adjudication:-

          (i)      What is the actual date of birth of the complainant?

(ii)     Whether the officials of the opposite parties were negligent and deficient in updating wrong date of birth of the complainant in the policy and its related documents? 

5.                The school certificate is considered to be the best evidence in order to determine the date of birth. Ex. C10 and Ex. C11 are the certificates duly issued by ICSE, New Delhi showing the date of birth of the complainant as 06.01.1988. This date of birth has also been reflected in the adhar card Ex. C1, in the medical examination report Ex. C5 and also in the PAN card Ex. C8. From the above said documents, it is proved that the actual date of birth of the complainant is 06.01.1988.

6.                It is pertinent to mention that the purchase of the policy was online and the complainant had submitted documents as required by the opposite parties before issuance of the policy. The complainant also underwent medical examination and accordingly, the policy was issued. From the available record, it can be ascertained that the complainant had been regularly paying the premium. The error regarding the wrong entry of the date of birth was firstly detected on 07.06.2016. Since then the complainant has been repeatedly requesting through emails to the opposite parties to effect the change in the policy as well as related documents but it is strange that the opposite parties even then did not care to respond to the said emails and the representation submitted to them. Rather after the elapse of considerable period, the opposite parties finally woke up and put a rider for correction of the date of birth in the form of enhancement of the premium and sought the consent of the complainant. While imposing this condition, the opposite parties did not refer any term and condition which entitles them to enhance the premium.  Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is clear that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties for not rectifying the date of birth of the complainant promptly without any rhyme and reason. There is inordinate delay on the part of the opposite parties for consideration of requests of the complainant.  The conditional response for rectification is also arbitrary and unjustifiable.  

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with an order that the opposite parties shall correct the date of birth of the complainant on the policy documents from 01.06.1988 to 06.01.1988 without any enhanced premium. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

8.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (Sanjeev Batra)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:15.11.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Manraj Dhillon Vs The Chairman, Aegon LIC               CC/19/62

Present:       Sh. Amit Sood, Advocate for complainant.

                   OPs exparte.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with an order that opposite party No.1 shall pay remaining claim of Rs.14,896/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from 24.05.2019 i.e. the date of partial settlement of the claim. Opposite party No.1 shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (Sanjeev Batra)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:15.11.2022.

Gobind Ram.