Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 103.
Instituted on : 08.02.2012.
Decided on : 27.07.2017.
Smt. Mamta w/o Sh. Ajay Gandhi R/o H.No.1773, Sector-1, New Housing Board Colony, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Ltd. Ashoka Complex, Rohtak through Branch Manager.
- Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co. Ltd., IInd Floor, SCO 2417,-18 Sector-22 C, Chandigarh through office Incharge.
- Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co. Ltd., First Floor, Nomura, B-Wing Hiranandani Business Park, Hiranandani Povai, Mumbai through Manager.
- Grievenson Redressal Officer, Grievance Cell, Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co.Ltd. IInd Floor, Paranji-B, Scheme Subhash Road, Near Garver House, Ville Parle Mumbai-400057.
- Incharge Customer Affair Department, I.R.D.A., Third Floor, Parisharam Bhavan, Basir Bag, Hyderabad-Andhra Pradesh.
- Secretary Bima Lokpal/Lokayukt S.C.O. 101-103, IInd Floor, Batra Building Sector-17, Chandigarh.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH.VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Amit Saini, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite party No.1,2,3,5 & 6 given up.
Opposite party No.4 already exparte.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that the employees of opposite parties contacted the complainant and allured her to take the ULIP plans-money back plan of opposite parties. It is averred that the employee of opposite party received a cheque no.0270870 and cheque No.270867 amounting to Rs.25000/- each from the complainant and took the signatures of complainant on two places. It is averred that opposite parties issued a policy No.110212990732 dated 26.02.2011 and the complainant was shocked to see the alleged policy as there were major defect in the alleged policy and by forging the signatures of the complainant and appointee on the policy, employees of opposite parties have committed fraud. It is averred that complainant contacted the opposite parties to take action against their employees for committing the fraud. It is averred that complainant had only done signatures on page no.18 whereas it were printed on every page of policy by scanning the same. It is averred that the signatures of husband of the complainant were printed on every page of the policy as an appointee whereas no signatures were done by husband of the complainant. It is averred that despite repeated requests of the complainant, no action was taken by the opposite parties against the erring officials. It is averred that complainant sent a legal notice dated 31.05.2011 submitting therein to return the amount deposited by the complainant and also to return the cheque and other documents deposited by her with the opposite parties but to no effect. It is averred that after filing a complaint before the Bima lokpal, opposite party sent a cheque no.030938 dated 07.01.2012 amounting to Rs.25000/- to the complainant but other cheque and documents were not returned to the complainant. It is averred that act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to return the cheque no.270870 Axis Bank and other documents alongwith compensation of Rs.65000/- and litigation expenses amounting to Rs.15000/- to the complainant.
2. On notice opposite party No.4 appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that complainant Mrs. Mamta Rani, submitted application for life insurance bearing No.A0450641 dated 17.02.2011 for a sum assured of Rs.211295/- within annual premium of Rs.25000/-. It is averred that the above said policy bearing no.110212990732 was sent to the complainant on 28.02.2011 which was received by the complainant on 02.03.2011. It is averred that pursuant to the receipt of the policy the complainant opted to cancel the said policy within free look period, which was allowed by the answering opposite party and the premium was refunded by the opposite party vide cheque No.030938 dated 04.01.2012. The said chqeue was also encashed by the complainant leaving no privity of contract between the parties. It is averred that since the premium amount has been refunded by the opposite parties so no cause of action remains as the policy contract stands terminated and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is averred that receipt of cheque no.270867 and 270870 for a sum of Rs.25000/- is not disputed. However it is submitted that against the cheque no.270867 the above referred policy was isused and the chqeue bearing No.270870 was bounced, therefore, no policy was issued to the complainant. It is averred that allegations of fraud etc. against the employees are not proved. It is averred that the complainant herself has proved the case of the opposite parties that they have cancelled the policy in question and refunded the premium to her thereby leaving no cause of action to file the present complaint. It is prayed that the present complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs. However opposite party no.1,2,3, 5 & 6 were given up by the complainant being unnecessary vide statement dated 25.04.2017. Opposite party no.4 did not file any evidence despite availing sufficient opportunities and did not appear on 03.07.2017 and accordingly was proceeded against exparte.
3. Complainant led evidence in support of his case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A & Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.CW1 to Ex.CW20 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case it is not disputed that two cheques bearing no.270867 and 270870 for a sum of Rs.25000/- each were received by the opposite party No.4. It is also not disputed that against the cheque no.270867 the above referred policy was issued which was cancelled by the complainant during the free look period and the amount of that policy was returned to the complainant. However regarding the cheque bearing No.270870, it is submitted by the opposite party that the same was bounced, therefore, no policy was issued to the complainant against this cheque.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that a policy against cheque no.270867 was issued to the complainant by the opposite party and thereafter the complainant got cancelled the alleged policy and the amount of Rs.25000/- was refunded to the complainant. As the other cheque bearing No.270870 was bounced. Hence the complainant has not purchased the second policy from the opposite party and is not consumer of opposite party as is held in III(2015)CPJ 156(Punj.) titled as Lovely Autos & Anr. Vs. Sandeep Kumar whereby Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh has held that : “Person does not become ‘consumer’ just by booking of car”, as per 1(2008)CPJ 207(NC) titled as Prakash Vs. Radheshyam Agarwal & Ors. Whereby Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has held that: “Complainant not purchased anything, not consumer-Not entitled to any relief”. Regarding the other documents, it is observed that the opposite parties have obtained the documents from the complainant which were necessary for issuance of policy. No other specific name of the document has been mentioned in the complaint which the complainant wanted to receive back from the opposite parties. Complainant has also failed to prove the allegation of fraud against the opposite parties in the absence of any expert/documentary evidence. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
27.07.2017.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ved Pal, Member.
