THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 374 of 13
Date of Institution : 21.5.2013
Date of Decision : 02.07.2015
Mr. Raman Kumar Talwar son of Sh. Idamal Talwar, resident of H.No.2439, Lambi Gali, Katra Dullo, Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited through its Manager/person Incharge, Ist Floor, SCO 26, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar
Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited through its G.Manager/Manager/Person in charge, 2nd Floor, Paranjpe B Scheme,Subash Road, Near Garware House, Vileparle (East) Mumbai
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Rajesh Bhatia,Advocate
For the opposite parties No.1 & 2 : Sh. Sunil Nayyar,Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
-2-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Raman Kumar under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that in the month of April 2012 the agent of the opposite parties approached the complainant and told him about the life insurance policy of the opposite party. Upon believing the representation made by the said agent complainant agreed to purchase insurance policy for himself and his wife Madhu Talwar was intended to be a nominee in the said policy. The complainant signed the said forms of the policy, which were filled in by the said agent of the opposite party and paid the premium of Rs. 48750/-. Complainant has alleged that when he received the policy premium notice, he was shocked to know that the policy has been issued in the name of his wife Madhu Talwar and the name of the complainant was reflected as proposer . Complainant was also shocked to know that the said policy was not of one time premium rather the amount of Rs. 48748/- was required to be paid every year for 12 years. Thereafter the complainant paid several visits to the opposite party and requested to refund the premium amount to him, but the opposite party did not listen the request of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to cancel the policy and refund the amount of Rs. 48750/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. Compensation of Rs. 30000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
-3-
2. On notice opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant as proposer submitted the application/proposal form for insurance policy bearing No. A555576 dated 11.4.2012 to insure life of his wife Mrs. Madhu Talwar with annual premium of Rs. 48748/- . Basic sum assured was Rs. 3,32,650/-. The policy term was 17 years and premium payment term was 12 years. Thereafter the opposite party issued policy No. 120413505629 on 25.4.2012 which was despatched to the complainant via courier AWB No. 40358952675 on 26.4.2012 which was delivered to the complainant on 30.4.2012 at the address of the complainant. It was submitted that complainant was apprised with the terms and conditions of the policy before signing the application form. The complainant has signed the said application with his own will and consent after understanding all the contents of the said application. It was submitted that as per Insurance Regulatory Development Authority regulations, each policy holder is apprised about the option of free look period of 15 days through a welcome letter sent alongwith the policy documents. Under the free look option, if the policy holder find any discrepancy in the policy terms and conditions, he may exercise the free look option for cancellation of the policy . The said policy was received by the complainant on 30.4.2012. However, the complainant did not avail the free look option within the stipulated period. As such the complainant is not entitled to refund of the premium amount. While denying and controverting other allegations,
-4-
dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, letter dated 31.12.2012 Ex.C-2, policy schedule Ex.C-3, copy of letter dated 31.12.2012 Ex.C-4.
4. Opposite party tendered affidavit of sh. Jitin Parekh authorized signatory Ex.OPW/1, copy of resolution Ex.OP1, proposal form Ex.OP2, certificate of delivery of policy Ex.OP3, welcome letter Ex.OP4.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that Raman Kumar Talwar and his wife Madhu Talwar in order to obtain insurance policy filled in and signed proposal form Ex.OP2 on 11.4.2012. Complainant and his wife Madhu Talwar signed this proposal form. The complainant alleges that he approached the opposite party for policy in his name and he wanted to get his wife pleaded as nominee. Premium of the policy was Rs. 48,748/- yearly. The complainant did not receive the policy documents. However, complainant received only payment premium notice dated 31.12.2012 Ex.C-4 from which the complainant came to know that opposite party
-5-
No.1 issued insurance policy in the name of his wife Madhu Talwar and not in the name of the complainant. Then complainant approached the opposite party for issuance of policy. But the opposite party did not issue the policy documents to the complainant. As such the complainant requested the opposite party to cancel the policy and refund the amount of premium to the complainant because the opposite party has issued faulty plan . Moreover, the agent of the opposite party has mis-represented the complainant that it is a one time premium policy and the complainant is shocked to receive the premium payment notice. But the opposite party did not refund the amount of premium to the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the complainant as proposer submitted the application/proposal form for insurance policy bearing No. A555576 dated 11.4.2012 Ex.OP2 to insure life of his wife Mrs. Madhu Talwar with annual premium of Rs. 48748/- . Basic sum assured was Rs. 3,32,650/-. The policy term was 17 years and premium payment term was 12 years. Resultantly the opposite party issued policy No. 120413505629 on 25.4.2012 which was despatched to the complainant via courier AWB No. 40358952675 on 26.4.2012 which was delivered to the complainant on 30.4.2012 at the address of the complainant. In this regard the opposite party produced certificate of delivery of policy Ex.OP3. If
-6-
the complainant was no satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, he could get the policy cancelled by making request within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents. But the complainant did not do so. As such the request of the complainant for cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium amount, was not accepted by the opposite party. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant and his wife approached the opposite party for the Insurance policy and they filled in and signed the proposal form Ex.OP2 which was duly signed by the complainant as proposer and by his wife Madhu Talwar as insured. So the plea of the complainant that the complainant approached the opposite party for insurance poliy in his name and he wanted to get the name of his wife as nominee of the policy, is not tenable because this document fully proves that complainant and his wife filled in this proposal form for the issuance of the policy in the name of Madhu Talwar and the complainant signed this proposal form as proposer. Further the plea of the complainant that he came to know from the premium payment notice received by the complainant from the opposite party dated 31.12.2012 exbt.C-4 that the opposite party issued policy in the name of Madhu Talwar and not in the name of the complainant and that it was not a single premium
-7-
policy as alleged by the opposite party, is also not tenable because this proposal form Ex.OP2 which was duly signed by the complainant and his wife itself states that the policy is for 17 years premium payment term 12 years and the sum assured is Rs. 3,32,650/-.
9. As regards the delivery of the policy by the opposite party to the complainant, the complainant has categorically stated that he did not receive the policy documents from the opposite party, so he could not exercise his option during free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents for the cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium amount. Whereas the opposite party has stated in their written version that policy was issued to the complainant on 25.4.2012 which was despatched to the complainant on 26.4.2012 through courier AWB No. 40358952675 and was delivered to the complainant. In this regard the opposite party produced certificate Ex.OP3 in which it has been mentioned that the policy was issued on 25.4.2012 which was despatched on 26.4.2012 through AWB Courier with policy delivery date is 30.4.2012. But in this certificate nowhere it has been mentioned that to whom the policy was delivered and at what address ? Opposite party could not produce any certificate from AWB courier to prove that the policy was delivered to the complainant or to any other person and what was the relation of that person with the complainant/insured. Moreover, the opposite party could not produce any delivery list from AWB courier
-8-
to prove that the policy documents were delivered at the address of the complainant nor the opposite party could file affidavit of any person from AWB courier , who allegedly delivered the policy documents to the complainant or any other person related to the complainant and what was the relation with the complainant. It has been held by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , Punjab in First Appeal No. 1602 of 2012 decided on 22.1.2013 titled as ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jasjit Walia that where a person who delivered the shipment has not been produced nor his affidavit has been filed. Moreover, the document itself shows that shipment was not delivered to the complainant but it was received by one Kulwinder. There is no mention whether this Kulwinder is a male or female or what is the relationship of complainant with Kulwinder . Otherwise also , the delivery of the shipment to Kulwinder cannot be considered as the delivery of the policy to the complainant.
10. So we hold that the opposite party has failed to prove on record the delivery of the policy documents to the complainant. As such the complainant has been deprived of his right to exercise the option for cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents.
11. The complainant approached the opposite party for the refund of the premium
-9-
amount but the opposite party neither refunded the premium amount to the complainant nor issued the policy documents to the complainant.
12. Consequently we allow the complaint with costs and the opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of the premium paid by the complainant to the opposite parties after deduction of stamp charges, medical charges, if any, and the mortality charges for the period the policy remained inforce , within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of copy of order; failing which complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite party is also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
13. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
2.7.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
/R/ ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
