Haryana

Karnal

26/2014

Arvind Parbhakar S/o Devi Shankar Parbhakar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. V.K. Kapoor

14 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No. 26 of 2014

                                                             Date of instt. 29.01.2014

                                                               Date of decision:14.09.2016

 

Arvind Parbhakar son of Shri Devi Shankar Parbhakar resident of house no.193-C Model Town Karnal.

 

                                                                         ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus

Religare Finevest Ltd. SCO 56-58 IInd Floor Sector-9-D Chandigarh.

 

                                                                                 …………Opposite Party.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri V.K. Kapoor Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri N.K.Sukhan Advocate for opposite party.

                                     

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, on the averments that on 25.07.2012 the agent of opposite party came to him and persuaded him to get single premium policy Flexi Money Back Plan and told that maturity was after five years and that after five years he would get the sum insured alongwith bonus and in case of natural death double the amount and bonus would be payable. He issued cheque bearing no.78469 of Rs.1,05,000/- for the abovesaid policy which was encashed by the opposite party. He requested the opposite party vide letter dated 3.8.2013, for refund of the amount of policy, as he was mis-guided by the agent. He was unable to file objection in the “Freelook period” as the policy was received by him about one month back inspite of various representations. Thus, the opposite party resorted to unfair trade practice by mis-guiding him and concealing the terms and conditions of the actual plan. He has claimed the refund of the amount of Rs.1,05,000/-deposited by him alongwith interest thereon and compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite party, who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint does not disclose any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint and that the complaint is not maintainable.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant submitted application for insurance bearing no.A550818 dated 23.07.2012 proposing for Aegon Religare Flexi Money Back Plan for his own life, with annual initial premium of Rs.1,05,000/-. The basic sum proposed was Rs.6,78,385/-. On receipt of the application and required documents, policy bearing no.120713571892 was issued on 27.7.2012. The complainant had also submitted a Notice of assignment dated 24.7.2012, which reflected that there was an assignment of the said policy and he transferred his rights and benefits in favour of M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. in consideration of his Business Loan. According to the Notice of assignment, the policy document was sent to assignee on 3.8.2012 through Blue Dart AWB no.46079401782 and the same was delivered on 6.8.2012 at the address of the assignee. The opposite party also sent a letter dated 3.8.2012 to the complainant stating that his request for assignment of the policy was completed w.e.f.2.8.2012 and the original policy bond alongwith other relevant documents was sent to the assignee. It has further been pleaded that the complainant made complaint through e-mail dated 9.6.2013 for cancellation of the policy, which was replied by the opposite party vide e-mail dated 10.6.2013 and he was informed that policy was assigned by him through Finance Center Religare Finvest Ltd., therefore, the policy documents were sent to the assignee and the opposite party was under no obligation to send the policy documents to him. The opposite party received “No Objection Certificate” for deletion of assignment from the policy, vide letter dated 8.11.2013 from Religare Finvest Limited and the complainant was to collect the policy documents from the said assignee. Therefore, as per the regulatory provisions laid down by the IRDA, the opposite party was not under any obligation to cancel the policy. It has also been alleged that the complainant being an educated person had chosen the plan suitable to his requirement. He was given detailed description of the said policy plan before signing the application. Thus, neither there was any deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The other allegations of the complainant have been specifically denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex. C1 to C9 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party, affidavit of Jitin Parekh  and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP8 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                The complainant obtained Flexi Money Back Plan policy from the opposite party and admittedly deposited an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- as premium. It has been alleged by the complainant that the agent of the opposite party told him that the policy was to mature after five years, but he was shocked to know after receiving the letter from the opposite party that the policy term was 14 years and the sum insured was Rs.67,83,850/-. He requested the opposite party by writing letter dated 3.8.2013 for refund of the amount of the policy.

7.                The copy of the application form submitted by the complainant for obtaining the policy has been produced by the opposite party as Ex.OP1, wherein the base sum proposed was mentioned as 6,78,385/-, the policy term as 14 years and premium paying term as 10 years. Installment premium was also mentioned as Rs.1,05,000/- and the same was payable yearly. The said application form was duly signed by the complainant. Apart from that the complainant had also filled up Notice of assignment Under Section 38 of the Insurance Act, 1938, the copy of which is Ex.OP3, according to which the policy was assigned to Religare Finvest Ltd. in consideration of business loan. The opposite party accepted the said assignment and sent letter in that regard to the complainant, the copy of which is Ex.OP5. In the said letter also, it was mentioned that the sum insured was Rs. 67,83,850/-, policy premium was Rs.1,04,975/-, policy term was 14 years and premium payment term as 10 years. Complainant is well educated person and this fact is apparent from the fact that he signed the documents Ex.OP1 and OP3 in English language. He could very well go through the contents of the said documents and understand the same before putting his signatures. Moreover, he received the letter, the copy of which is Ex.OP5, wherein also the term of the policy was mentioned as 14 years and premium term as 10 years. The opposite party has also produced the transcript of the conversation between an employee of the opposite party and the complainant on phone, as Ex.OP6. The said conversion also lends support to the plea raised by the opposite party that the complainant accepted that the premium paying term was 10 years and the validity of the policy was for 14 years. The employee of the opposite party Mr. Rijhwan had clarified all the terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant and the complainant accepted the same. Therefore, under such facts and circumstances, the allegation of the complainant that he was mis-guided by the agent of the opposite party is not sufficient to rebut this overwhelming evidence on record, therefore, the same cannot be accepted.

8.                No doubt the complainant did not receive the policy document immediately after issuing the policy by the opposite party, but such fact does not cut any ice in his favour, because he himself had assigned the policy to Religare Finvest Ltd., therefore, the opposite party was bound to send the policy document to the assignee and was under no obligation to send the policy document to the complainant. The documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 indicate that the complainant wrote letters to the opposite party for refund of the policy amount for the first time on 3.8.2013. Thereafter, he lodged complaints through e-mail. The policy was issued by the opposite party on 27.7.2012. The letter regarding assignment of the policy, the copy of which is Ex.C1/Ex.OP5 was sent to the complainant immediately after issuing the policy, wherein the policy term and premium payment term were specifically mentioned. If, the complainant wanted to cancel the policy, he could get the same cancelled immediately, thereafter, but within 15 days after coming to know about the term of the policy and premium paying term, but he did not opt to do so. However, the complainant sought cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium amount deposited by him after a period of one year i.e. on 3.8.2013 which was not permissible as per terms and conditions of the policy. In this way, the complainant has failed to establish that there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

9.                As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 14.09.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member