THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR

Consumer Complaint No. 676 of 2014

Date of Institution : 29.12.2014

Date of Decision : 13.08.2015

Devender Nath Sharma Son of Sh. Ram Chand R./o 8 Tilak Nagar, Amritsar

...Complainant

Vs.

1. Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co.Ltd through its Managing Director

2. The Managing Director/CEO Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co.Ltd. Both having their office at SCO 26 (Second Floor) B-Block, Ranjit Avenue,Amritsar

3. Amritsar Endeavour, Code 10028242, Mobile/Landline Number 01204299235 through the Managing Director/CEO Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co.Ltd.

4. Sh.Varun Saxena Manager, Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co.Ltd.

5. Sh.Ved Parkash Arora Sr.Manager Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co.Ltd.C/o all through their Managing Director/CEO Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co.Ltd both having their office at SCO 26 (Second Floor) B-Block, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar

....Opp.parties

Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

-2-

Present : For the complainant : In person

For the opposite parties : Sh. Sunil Nayyar,Advocate

Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &

Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member

Order dictated by :-

Bhupinder Singh, President

1. Present complaint has been filed by Devender Nath Sharma under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he was approached by Sh. Varun Saxena and Sh. Ved Pakash Arora on telephone who allured the complainant to invest his money on the plan explained by them to the complainant. On their assurance, complainant obtained three insurance policies from the opposite parties bearing policy No. 120613540899 dated 19.6.2012 for Rs. 31310/- policy No. 120613543680 for Rs. 4,00,000/- dated 26.6.2012 and policy No. 120713563065 for Rs. 1,99,310/- dated 20.7.2012 . The complainant submitted that officials/representative of the opposite parties Aegon Religare i.e. opposite parties No.3 to 5 explained to the complainant that opposite party No.1 is investing money in Govt.of India funding Plan like IPO issued by Govt. of India on coal blocks and the money in those funds grows faster than any other company. The complainant received the policies. The complainant submitted that he provided two cheques of Rs. 50000/- each total amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- which will be encashed by opposite party No.1. The complainant further submitted that opposite party also provided different cancellation codes which were written by the complainant on each application form. But the opposite parties neither presented these cheques to the banker of the complainant nor got the same encashed nor informed the complainant about the current position of the cheques. The complainant became suspicious and he filed complaint on 1.10.2012 to the opposite parties regarding cancellation of the policy and refund of the amount. But they replied in a vague manner. In the reply opposite parties have suggested the complainant to continue the insurance policies. Complainant also served legal notice dated 17.11.2012 .But even then the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to repay the amount of three policies with interest @ 18% p.a. Compensation of Rs. 10000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.

2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complainant as a proposer submitted three application forms for covering the risk on life of his daughter Ms.Swati Sharma , the details of which is as under :-

3. Thereafter complainant was issued policy No. 120613540899 on 19.6.2012, policy bearing No. 120613543680 on 26.6.2012 and 120713563065 on 20.7.2012 on the basis of information provided by him in the said application forms. The aforesaid policies were sent to the complainant via AWB No. 40381202971, 40381208372 and 40381488954 and the same were delivered to the complainant on 22.6.2012, 29.6.2012 and 23.7.2012 at the address mentioned in the proposal forms. It was submitted that complainant had signed the said application on his own will and consent after understanding all the contents of the application forms . It was submitted that as per IRDA regulations, each policy holder is apprised about the option of free look period of 15 days that if the policy holder finds any discrepancy in the policy terms and conditions , he may exercise the free look option . The aforesaid policies were despatched to the complainant and the same were received by the complainant on 22.6.2012, 29.6,2012 and 23.7.2012. However, the complainant did not avail the free look option within the stipulated time. However, no such request for cancellation of the policies has ever been received by the opposite parties prior to 3.10.2012 which is time barred i.e. after a lapse of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy in question. Therefore as per the agreed terms and conditions of the policy the policies of the complainant cannot be cancelled. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 , copy of Insu. Policy Ex.C-2, copy of proposal form Ex.C-3, copy of Insu.Policy Ex.C-4, copy of proposal form Ex.C-5, copy of Insu.:Policy Ex.C-6, copy of proposal form Ex.C-7, letter written to Insu.Company Ex.C-8, reply to that letter Ex.C-9, legal notice Ex.C-10, Income tax return Ex.C-11, copy of proposal form Ex.C-12, copy of proposal form Ex.C-13, copy of proposal form Ex.C-14.

5. Opposite parties tendered affidavit of Sh. Jitin Parekh Ex.OP1, copy of Board resolution Ex.OP2, copy of proposal form Ex.OP3, copy of proposal form Ex.OP4, copy of proposal form Ex.OP5, copy of letter dated 15.10.2012 Ex.OP6.

6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the complainant and the ld.counsel for the opposite parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by the parties with the valuable assistance of the complainant and ld.counsel for the opposite parties.

7. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that complainant obtained three insurance policies from the opposite parties bearing policy No. 120613540899 dated 19.6.2012 for Rs. 31310/- Ex.C-2, policy No. 120613543680 for Rs. 4,00,000/- datd 26.6.2012 Ex.C-4 and policy No. 120713563065 for Rs. 1,99,310/- dated 20.7.2012 . The complainant submitted that officials/representative of the opposite parties Aegon Religare i.e. opposite parties No.3 to 5 explained to the complainant that opposite party No.1 is investing money in Govt.of India funding Plan like IPO issued by Govt. of India on coal blocks and the money in those funds grows faster than any other company. The complainant received the policies. The complainant submitted that he provided two cheques of Rs. 50000/- each total amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- which will be encashed by opposite party No.1. The complainant further submitted that opposite party also provided different cancellation codes which were written by the complainant on each application form. But the opposite parties neither presented these cheques to the banker of the complainant nor got the same encashed nor informed the complainant about the current position of the cheques. The complainant became suspicious and he filed complaint on 30.9.2012 Ex. C-8 to the opposite parties regarding cancellation of the policy and refund of the amount. But the opposite parties replied vide letter dated 15.10.2012 Ex.C-9 that the option given by the complainant was beyond free look cancellation period of 15 days from the receipt of the policies. So the request of the complainant does not satisfy the policy terms and conditions, as such the same is not acceptable. Then the complainant served legal notice dated 17.11.2012 Ex.C-12 . But even then the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant further submitted that as per the Income tax return filed by the complainant Ex.C-11 for the assessment year 2012-14 his total income is about Rs.3.5 lacs , whereas the opposite party has mentioned the income of the complainant about Rs. 25 lacs annually in the proposal form Ex.C-3, C-5 and C-7 respectively. The complainant submitted that all this shows that opposite parties have played fraud with the complainant and have exercised and involved in unfair trade practice which tantamount to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.

8. Whereas the case of the opposite parties is that in order to obtain the aforesaid three Insurance policies , the complainant who is an Advocate and fully literate person filled in and signed the proposal forms Ex.C-3, C-5 and C-7 respectively. Not only this he also signed the declaration forms under these policies that he has understood all the contents of these application forms and has satisfied with the same and is signing these proposal forms after admitting the same as correct. On the basis of these application/proposal forms, opposite party issued Flexi Money Back i.e. unit linked policies Ex.C-2, C-4 and C-6 respectively and it has been categorically mentioned on the application/proposal forms filled in by the complainant Ex.C-3, C-5 and C-7 respectively that it is a unit linked plan. The investment risk in the investment portfolio is borne by the policy holder and the complainant himself has opted for investment of his entire amount of premium in Flexi Money Back i.e. in the open market in the form of shares. So the complainant has invested this amount by taking the aforesaid policies i.e. unit linked plan and has invested the amount in open marked in the form of shares just to earn profits. So the complainant is not the consumer as he has obtained these policies for commercial purpose. Opposite parties further submitted that these policies were issued to the complainant on 19.6.2012, 26.6.2012 and 20.7.2012 which were despatched to the complainant and were delivered to the complainant on 22.6.2012, 29.6.2012 and 23.7.2012 respectively at the address of the complainant mentioned in the proposal forms. However, complainant applied for cancellation of the policies for the first time vide letter dated 30.9.2012 Ex.C-8 i.e. after a lapse of a period of 2 to 3 months. Whereas complainant had option to get the policy cancelled within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy. So the opposite parties did not accept the request of the complainant for the cancellation of the policies after the expiry of the free look period. Ld.counsel for the opposite parties submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.

9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that in order to obtain the aforesaid three policies in the name of Swati Sharma, daughter of the complainant, complainant as proposer filled in and signed proposal forms Ex.C-3, C-5 and C-7 respectively in which all the details of the policies were written i.e. period of policy, premium payment term, sum assured, amount of premium and frequency of payment of premium which was yearly, have been categorically mentioned. The complainant himself has mentioned his income from 22 lacs to 25 lacs p.a being an Advocate. The complainant filled in and signed these proposal forms and also gave declaration that he has understood all the contents of the proposal forms and has signed the same in correctness of these proposal forms. On the basis of these proposal forms , opposite parties No.1 & 2 issued insurance policies Ex.C-2, C-4 and C-6 which were duly received by the complainant on 22.6.2012, 29.6.2012 and 23.7.2012 respectively and these facts have not been denied by the complainant. Rather these policies have been produced by the complainant himself and exhibited by him as Ex.C-2,C-4 and C-6 respectively. So it stands fully proved on record that complainant received these policies on 20.6.2012, 29.6.2012 and 23.7.2012 respectively. If the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy , he had option to get the policies cancelled within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents. But the complainant did not exercise this option rather he applied for the cancellation of these policies to the opposite party for the first time vide letter dated 30.9.2012 Ex.C-8 which was received in the office of the opposite party on 1.10.2012 and the opposite party submitted reply to the complainant Ex.C-9 dated 15.10.2012 in which opposite party has categorically stated that the complainant has received the policies on 22.6.2012, 29.6,2012 and 23.7.2012 respectively. He did not exercise his option for cancellation of these policies within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policies. So the request of the complainant for cancellation of the policies which was received by the opposite party for the first time on 1.10.2012 Ex.C-8, cannot be accepted as it was beyond the period of free look cancellation of 15 days.

10. Complainant submitted that he had already filled in cancellation code in the application forms itself but the opposite party has not produced the complete record pertaining to the proposal forms. This plea of the complainant is not tenable because first, it cannot be believed that the complainant who is filling in the proposal form to get the policies will also give cancellation code in the same application. Secondly, complainant has not mentioned , what was the cancellation code he had mentioned in the proposal/application forms. Moreover, he has also not mentioned as to in which eventuality the said cancellation code would apply or would be applicable.

11. Further, complainant has stated that he issued two cheques to the opposite party for Rs. 50000/- each, which were to be encashed by the opposite party No.1 itself but the opposite party neither got the said cheques encashed nor returned the said cheques to the complainant , so he became suspicious. This plea of the complainant is also not tenable because the complainant has not mentioned the number of the cheques, date of issue of the cheques and the bank or the financial institution of which aforesaid two cheques were issued and to whom the complainant handed over those cheques nor the complainant could produce any evidence on record in this regard that he had issued which cheques of which bank with which number and on which date.

12. Apart from this the complainant has obtained these policies Ex.C-2, C-4 and C-6 which are all unit linked policies. It has been clearly written on the proposal forms Ex.C-3, C-5 and C-7 that the plan is unit linked plan. Investment risk in the investment portfolio is to be borne by the policy holder. Apart from this complainant himself has opted for the investment of his entire premium amount in Flexi Money Back Plan i.e. in the open market in the form of shares just to earn profits i.e. for speculative gains. As such complainant has invested the amount through these aforesaid three policies to earn speculative gain i.e. for commercial purpose. As such the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer. It has been held by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd and another in Revision Petition no. 658 of 2012 decided on 23.04.2013 that where the policy was taken by the complainant for investment of the premium amount in the share market which is for speculative gain, the complaint did not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Smt.Abanti Kumari Sahoo Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited in First Appeal no. 162 of 2010. So this complaint is not maintainable in this Fora.

13. Consequently, this complaint is hereby returned to the complainant with liberty to file the case before the appropriate court/ Forum. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

14. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

13.8.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)

/R/ Member Member