BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.645 of 13

Date of Institution: 20-9-2013

Date of Decision: 14-05-2015 

Smt.Harjinder Kaur wife of Shri Ram Parkash Singh son of Sh.Gurjit Singh, resident of H.No.46/5701, Kapoor Nagar, Gali No.2, Sultanwind Road, Opposite Petrol Pump, Amritsar. 

Complainant

Versus

1. Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited, C/O Ist Floor, SCO-23, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its Branch Manager/ Principal Officer.
2. Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited, C/O Unit No. 102, First Floor, Nomura, B-wing, Hiranandani Business Park, Hiranandani, Powai, Mumbai-400076 through its M.D/ Director/ Authorised Officer.

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: None for the complainant.

              For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Sunil Nayyar, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Smt.Harjinder Kaur under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that agent of the Opposite Parties namely Mr.Vikram Rathore, approached the complainant’s husband for getting the life policy and on his representation and allurement, the complainant’s husband obtained first policy under the Plan of Company named as Aegon Religare Educare Plan bearing No. 120313481748 on 28.3.2012 for a sum assured of Rs.279416/- with the premium of Rs. 40999 for a term of 16 years having premium pay term of 12 years.  Lateron, husband of the complainant received a call from Mr.Vinod Srivastava agent of the Opposite Parties that he got the bonus of Rs.415630/- on the said policy from the Opposite Parties, but for getting this, he had to purchase another policy of Rs.58900/- from the Opposite Parties and on his such representation and allurement, the complainant’s husband had purchased second life policy from the Opposite Party bearing policy No. 120313495414 dated 31.3.2012 for a sum assured of Rs.401410/- with the first yearly premium of Rs. 58900/- for the term of 16 years and premium pay term of 12 years  and the premium amount was duly paid by him. On the further allurement and representation by the agent of the Opposite Parties, the complainant’s husband  had purchased 3^rd policy from the Opposite Parties bearing  No. 120413510369 on 25.4.2012 for a sum assured of Rs.169730/- with the first yearly premium of Rs. 24000/- for the policy term of 17 years and premium pay term of 12 years and this policy was named as Aegon Flexi Money back policy in the name of complainant. Thereafter, the complainant’s husband received a call from Kavita Sharma from the Income Tax department  stating that she had both the cheques of complainant’s husband of Rs.285400/- and Rs.415630/- from the Opposite Parties and to obtain this benefit of bonus, the complainant’s husband has to fill the withdrawal form and for this, the complainant has to purchase another policy on payment of Rs.16000/- and under such allurement, the complainant’s husband had purchased 4^th policy bearing No. 120513517835 dated 11.5.2012 for sum of Rs.416615/- with the yearly premium of Rs.60000/- for the policy term of 17 years and premium pay term of 12 years. However, the present complaint is being filed for 3^rd  policy which is in the name of complainant. Complainant alleges that since the purchase of the aforesaid polices on payment of the huge amounts in the shape of premiums, the complainant or her husband have not been paid any amount of bonus/ benefits on such policies so far. As such, the complainant is no more interested to keep the said policies for such a longer period and to pay the huge premium amounts. Even otherwise, the complainant’s husband is facing a great slump in the business and is suffering huge financial crisis and as such is not in a position to pay further amounts of premium. The complainant’s husband approached the Opposite Parties and requested them to cancel the same and to refund the entire amount with accrued interest thereon or in the alternative, to covert the same into single premium, but 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 pay back/ refund the entire amounts of the premiums alongwith accrued interest/ bonus thereon or in alternative to covert the same into single premium. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Parties appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant submitted application for insurance in his name bearing Nos.A0753334 dated 21.4.2012 proposing for Aegon Religare Flexi Money Back Plan  for annual initial premium of Rs.24000/-/-.   The basic sum assured was Rs. 160730/-.  On receipt of the application and required documents, the policy bearing No.120413510369 issued on 25.4.2012.  The aforesaid policy was delivered to the complainant on 2.5.2012 at the address mentioned in the proposal form by the complainant. The complainant was given a detailed description about the features of the said policy plan including all the charges that shall be levied on the same and was also appraised with its terms and conditions before signing of the said applications. The complainant had made payment of the initial annual premiums for the aforesaid policy. The complainant has signed the said application, she had clear understanding of the contents of the said application as the same were acceptable to her, and hence the same are admitted documents.  As formulated and mandated by IRDA regulations, each policy holder is apprised about the option of Free Look Period of 15 days through a Welcome Letter sent alongwith the policy contract documents. Under the Free Look Option, if the policy holder finds any discrepancy in the policy terms and condition sent to him/ her, he/she may exercise the free look option. The aforesaid policy documents   were delivered on 2.5.2012 to the complainant, but the complainant did not avail the Free Look Option with the stipulated time mentioned in the said letter therein. The Free Look Period of 15 days for policy No.120413510369 expired on 17.5.2012. Admittedly, the first protest was lodged by the complainant only on 13.3.2013 after one year of receipt of the policy No.120413510369, therefore, as per the agreed terms  and conditions of the policy documents, the policy of the complainant can not be cancelled. It is submitted that Opposite Parties vide letter dated 22.3.2013 have informed to the complainant that the said request for cancellation of the policy was out of Free Look Period of 15 days as per the terms and condition of the policy documents, hence the policy could not be cancelled. So, as per the regulatory provisions laid down by IRDA, the Opposite Parties were not under any legal obligation or entitled to entertain the request after the aforesaid date. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C18 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Jiten Parekh authorized signatory Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP4  closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant obtained policy bearing  No. 120413510369 on 25.4.2012 for a sum assured of Rs.169730/- with the first yearly premium of Rs. 24000/- for the policy term of 17 years and premium pay term of 12 years and this policy was named as Aegon Flexi Money back policy. Complainant alleges that she obtained aforesaid policy which is subject matter in dispute in the name of complainant from the Opposite Parties on the basis of false and baseless assurances given by the agents of the Opposite Parties to get more and more bonus and benefits and on their allurement and misrepresentation, the complainant as well as her husband are facing a great slump in  business and are suffering huge financial crisis. As such, she  is not in a position to pay further amounts of premium of the aforesaid policy.  The complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 at Amritsar and  requested them to cancel the policy and  refund the entire amount with accrued interest thereon or in the alternative, to covert the same into single premium, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant through this complaint submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
7. Whereas the case of the Opposite Parties is that the complainant submitted applications forms duly filled in and signed for issuance of the policy Ex.OP3 bearing No.A0753334 dated 21.4.2012 with annual premium of Rs.24000/- on the basis of which, the policy bearing  No. 120413510369 was issued on 25.4.2012.  The aforesaid policy was delivered to the complainant on 2.5.2012 at the address mentioned in the proposal form by the complainant. If the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, she could have opted to cancel the policy within Free Look Period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy, but the complainant never applied for the cancellation of the policy within Free Look Period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy. Therefore, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the policy of the complainant can not be cancelled. Opposite Parties vide their letter dated 22.3.2013 Ex.OP4 have informed the complainant that said request of the complainant for cancellation for the policy was out of Free Look Period of 15 days, hence the policy could not be cancelled. Ld.counsel for the opposite parties submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant in order  get the policy filled in and signed the proposal form Ex.OP3 in which all the terms and conditions of the policy have been duly mentioned on the basis of which, the policy bearing No. 120413510369 was issued on 25.4.2012.  The aforesaid policy has been duly received by the complainant as she has produced the Thanks Letter containing policy documents Ex.C2. If the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, she could have get  the policy cancelled  within Free Look Period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy, but the complainant did not exercise this option and thereafter after about one year, the complainant requested the Opposite Parties for cancellation of the policy and the Opposite Parties sent letter dated 22.3.2013 Ex.OP4 to the complainant stating that the request for the cancellation of the policy was out of Free Look Period of 15 days. So, as per the terms and conditions of the policy documents, the poilicy could not be cancelled.
9. The only allegation of the complainant is that husband of the complainant received message from one Mr.Vinod Srivastava alleged agent of Opposite Parties and one Kavita Sharma from Income Tax Department alluring the complainant’s husband that he had got bonus of lacs of rupees and that too within a few days of the induction of the policy and that he should get another policy to get the aforesaid bonus which is not tenable because the complainant could not produce any evidence oral or documentary in this regard nor the complainant has made these persons party to the present pleadings nor the complainant could produce any evidence that Vinod Srivastava is agent of Opposite Parties or that Kavita Sharma is employee of Income Tax department nor the complainant produced or examined these witnesses nor filed any affidavit of these witnesses. So, these allegations of the complainant are totally baseless. As such, we hold that Opposite Parties were justified in not accepting the request of the complainant for cancellation of the policies.
10. Consequently we hold that complainant has failed to prove on record any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
11. Resultantly the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 14-05-2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                 (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)    (Anoop Sharma)

              Member                         Member