Delhi

East Delhi

CC/818/2014

RAJ BIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

AEGON - Opp.Party(s)

23 Apr 2018

ORDER

             DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT of Delhi

              CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092  

 

                                                                                                   Consumer complaint no.      818/2014

                                                                                                   Date of Institution              09/04/2014

                                                                                                   Order reserved on              23/04/2018        

                                                                                                   Date of Order                      25/04/2018                                                                                     

 

In matter of

Mr Rajbeer Singh, adult   

s/o-Late Sh Baljeet Singh,

R/o- HN 18/148, Kalyan Puri, Delhi 110091….……………………….Complainant

                             

                                      Vs

1-Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co.Ltd 

D-3,P3 B, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi 110017

 

2- Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co.Ltd 

Nomura, B wing, First Floor

Unit no. 102, Nr. D Mart,

Hiranandani Business Park, Pawai, Mumbai-400076……………..Opponents

 

Complainant’s Advocate        P K Sharma     

Opponent’s Advocate             Sundeep Srivastava, c/o Pristine Councilors   

 

Quorum                                     Sh Sukhdev  Singh       President

                                                    Dr P N Tiwari                Member

                                                    Mrs Harpreet Kaur      Member                                                                                             

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member  

Brief

This complainant has been filed u/s 12 of C P Act, 1986 against OP for alleged deficiency in their services for refusing premium amount of policy and not non supplying ‘Gift’ under policy premium amount.

Facts of the case                                                                                                 

Complainant purchased single premium policy sum assured Rs 2 lacs from OP2 after paying through cheque. On 26/09/2011, executive of OP informed complainant that customer would get a special ‘Gift’ on investment of Rs 1.5 lacs and would get Samsung Laptop free of cost worth for a sum of Rs 35,000/-directly from OP 1 to their policy holder.

So, complainant got agreed, but did not get any Laptop and instead of getting Gift, got six policy bonds against one single application and policy proposal form and assured 12 to 18% interest per year return. It was stated that Free Look option of 15 days was given to complainant for cancellation of policies and if he was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policies, could return original policy bonds in Free Look Period and refund of premium amount would be done.

After receiving six policy bonds, he contacted OP office and made a complaint that he paid for a single policy premium amount of Rs 2 lacs for a single policy, but instead of getting one policy, why he got six policies, so he asked for correction of the same. He was assured that OP2’s head office at Mumbai and OP1 would rectify mistake and would get single policy and with Gift also. When no reply was received, complainant returned all the six policy bonds in Free Look Period with an application for refund of premium amount (Ex CW1/1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F and 1G). Later written note was given on 25/03/2014 (Ex CW1/2) for refund of premium amount, but received refusal letter on 28/03/2014 stating that Free Look Option was not availed, so no refund would be done by OP1.  Aggrieved by the act of OP as unfair and illegal, complainant filed this complaint claiming refund of premium amount Rs 2 lacs with 18% interest and compensation Rs 1 Lac for harassment and litigation cost Rs 50,000/-.

After receiving notice, OP appeared, but did not submit written statement so cost of Rs 1000/- was put which was deposited in the consumer welfare fund maintained by this Forum. Despite of cost deposited by OP, did not submit written statement so finally proceeded Ex parte.

 

OP filed Revision Petition before Hon State Commission Delhi against the daily order of this Forum dated 10/07/2015. The revision petition vide RP 61/2015 was decided on 10/12/2015 and after putting cost of Rs 5000/- , Ex Parte order was set aside and was directed to submit written statement on 06/01/2016.

 

OP jointly submitted written statement and denied all the allegations put against them by complainant. It was admitted that complainant submitted all six policy documents to the agent of OP under Free Look Period, but agent was not authorised to accept the policy documents and at present he was no more associated with OP.

It was alleged that fraud was done by their agent by making Co.’s stamp as seen at the policy documents. OP submitted that complainant had submitted six policy documents as 110913265738, 110913259884, 110913259887, 110913259813, 110913259767, and 110913259725. Complainant had put his signatures on all the papers of policy proposal form and before issuing policies, complainant had confirmed all the terms and conditions of polices. All policies were delivered to the complainant on 01/10/2011 and 03/10/2011 (Anne. OP2).

 

OP stated that every policy holders were apprised with all IRDA guidelines about Free Look Option period of 15 days through welcome letter sent with policy documents. Customers were free to change their plan or get refund if policy was surrendered under Free Look Period. It was stated that all literature, product voucher and key feature was sent with every policy. It was submitted that letter of surrender of policies were received by OP on 29/07/2013 where OP had replied for non refund of policy premium amount on 20/08/2013 and again on 28/03/20149 (Anne. OP3 colly). OP justified their non refund of premium amount as per terms and condition of the policy and specially not opting Free Look Option of 15 days. OP also justified their stand by taking ref of Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd vs KS Eshwarappa in RP 555/2011, NC (Ann.OP4), Dr Aditya Prasad Roy vs Mr. Suresh Mahalingam, RP 4351/20151, NC, (Anne. OP5), Mohan Lal Benal vs M/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. in RP 2870/2012, NC (Anne. OP6). Hence, prayed that there was no deficiency in OP’s services so this complaint may be dismissed.  

Complainant filed his rejoinder to the replies submitted in written statement and stated that his facts were true and correct as per his complaint. It was submitted that OP had received six policies well under Free Look Period and were duly received by the agent of the OP on dated 14/10/2011. It was stated that OP had terminated FIVE policies and refunded the premium amount through cheque as per details mentioned as follow- 

1. Policy no. 110913265738, SA Rs one lac and refunded amount Rs 1,13,739/- vide cheque no. 190429.
2. Policy no. 110913259884, SA Rs 20,000/- and refunded amount Rs 19,644.02 vide cheque no. 186292.
3. Policy no. 110913259887, SA Rs 20,000/- and refunded amount Rs 20,998.43 vide cheque no. 186290.
4. Policy no. 110913259813, SA Rs 20,000/- and refunded amount Rs 20,442.62 vide cheque no. 186289.
5. Policy no. 110913259767, SA Rs 20,000/- and refunded amount Rs 20,656.55/- vide cheque no. 186291.
6. Policy no. 110913259725, SA Rs 22486/-Premium amount not refunded (Ex CW1/3 to 7).

Complainant also filed his evidences on affidavit and reaffirmed on oath that all his evidences were correct and had been submitted on affidavit and were on record and relied by him.  

OP submitted their evidences on affidavit through Mr Jatin Parekh AR with OP and reaffirmed on oath that complainant did not avail the option of Free Look Period for cancellation of his polices which were issued after proper reading and understanding terms and conditions and their termination was justified as per IRDA guidelines and citations of higher commission.  

Arguments were heard from both the counsels and after perusal of file order was reserved.

After scrutinizing all facts and evidences on record, it was seen that complainant had deposited a cheque of Rs 2 Lac for a single premium policy from OP on 26/09/2011, but received six policies having different sum assured as under –

1. Policy no. 110913265738 as AEGON Religare Assure Plan UIN 138L025V01 having tenure 29/09/2011 to 28/09/2021 yearly premium Rs one Lac with sum assured 7Lacs.
2. Policy no. 110913259725 as AEGON Religare Money Back Plus Plan UIN 138N022V01 having tenure 29/09/2011 to 28/09/2027 yearly premium Rs Rs 22,486/-with sum assured 1,70,000/-.
3. Policy no. 110913259767 as AEGON Religare Assure Plan UIN 138L025V01 having tenure 29/09/2011 to 28/09/2021 yearly premium Rs 20,000/- with sum assured Rs 1,40,000/-.
4. Policy no. 110913259813 as AEGON Religare Future Protect Plan UIN 138L023V01 having tenure 29/09/2011 to 28/09/2026 yearly premium Rs 20,000/- with sum assure Rs 1,40,000/-
5. Policy no. 110913259884 as AEGON Religare Future Protect Plan UIN 138L024V01 having tenure 29/09/2011 to 28/09/2026 yearly premium Rs 20,000/- with sum assure Rs 1,40,000/-.
6. Policy no. 110913259887 as AEGON Religare Future Protect Premium Plan UIN 138L027V01 having tenure 29/09/2011 to 28/09/2021 yearly premium Rs 20,000/-with sum assured Rs 1,40,000/-.

It was also seen that OP had refunded premium amount of policies from s.n. 01 to 05 as mentioned above, but did not refund the amount citing that no cancellation request was received from complainant within Free Look Period though other policies were refunded as per their fund values meaning thereby OP had accepted all six policy documents from his agent well within Free Look Period as stated in the complaint and written statement, hence submitted all the citations were not applicable as policies were submitted within the Free Look Period. Also OP has not submitted any concrete evidence to prove for non refund of policy premium amount pertaining to policy no. Policy no. 110913259887 as AEGON Religare Future Protect Premium Plan nor submitted evidence of six policy proposal forms that could prove the complainant had submitted six proposal forms and had put sign on declarations. Also OP had not complained to Police for their agent who prepared forged Co.’s stamp and received policy documents from complainant. So here deficiency of OP is clearly established by their act as refunding five polices premium amount on their fund values and not refunding for one whose premium amount was Rs 20,000/-and initiating action on their agent.

Thus, we find merit and allow the complaint and pass the following order –

1-OP is directed to refund the premium amount Rs 20,000/- with 7% interest from the date of filing of this complaint till realized.

2-We also award compensation of Rs 7,000/-for mental and physical harassment caused to complainant due to deficiency in services and adopting unfair trade practice for collecting money from innocent complainants. This amount will also include litigation charges.

 

 

3-If award is not realized in time essence, the entire awarded amount shall carry the same interest till realized. 

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Regulation 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulation,2005 (in short the CPR) and file be consigned to Record Room under Regulation 20(1) of the CPR.

 

 (Dr) P N Tiwari  Member                                                                         Mrs  Harpreet Kaur  Member                                                                                                      

                                      

                                                  Shri  Sukhdev Singh  President