Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/184

Gurpreet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ageon Religare Insurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Gurtaj Sandhu

09 Jan 2017

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :      184

Date of Institution:  04.07.2016

Date of Decision :   09.01.2017

 

Gurpreet Kaur  aged about 34 years d/o Gurnam Singh s/o Mihan Singh r/o # B-XII/137, Danewala Street, Harindra Nagar, Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Ageon Religare Life Insurance Co. Ltd, 2^nd Floor, Grover Complex, Sh Hanuman Chowk, GT Road, Bathinda through its Branch Manager.

2. Ageon Religare Life Insurance Co. Ltd, Building No. 3^rd Floor, Unit No. 1, Nesco IT Park, Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumtai-400063 through its M.D.

   ..... (Ops)

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Gurtej Sandhu, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Ajit Pal Singh, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                         Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to refund the amount of Rs.1,51,012/-with interest and for further directing OPs to pay Rs 1,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, harassment, inconvenience, mental agony besides litigation expenses.

2                                    Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is a 10^th passed handicapped and is fully dependent on the income of her father for her survival. Father of complainant was a bank employee and he retired in 2001 and at the time of his retirement, he received hefty amount as retirement benefits and from this amount his father upbringing his family. It is further submitted that in December, 2014, agent/employee of OPs approached the father of complainant and allured them to purchase the insurance policy with assurance that she would get more benefit from insurance policy than from fixed deposits. They assured that if during the currency of Policy, father of complainant dies, then, in that case, she would get the whole amount deposited with OPs alongwith interest at the rate of 12% and in case of death of complainant, insured amount would go to her father. Being fully allured by assurances of OPs, both complainant and her father purchased an insurance policy from OPs and her father paid a cheque of Rs.76,000/-to OPs as instalment. At that time, OPs took signatures of complainant as well as her father on many blank forms and they also did not disclose any terms and conditions to them. It is further submitted that father of complainant died on 24.07.2015 and she informed about this fact to OPs in November, 2015 alongwith request the refund of amount deposited by her father with them. Employees of OPs took signatures of complainant on several blank forms and assured the payment of premium with interest. Thereafter, in February, 2016, when complainant visited the Bank, she came to know that OPs have illegally withdrawn the amount of Rs.75,012/-from the account of her father without her consent and despite the fact that they have full knowledge about his death. Complainant immediately approached OPs and requested them to refund the whole amount with interest, but OPs put off the complainant on one pretext or the other and then finally did not admit her request and refused to refund the amount and told her that her policy has been lapsed and she is not entitled to any relief as sought by her. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part and it has caused harassment and mental agony to complainant and she has prayed for accepting the present complaint. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                             The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 13.07.2016 passed by this Forum, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                    On receipt of the notice, the opposite party filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is false and frivolous and it is filed only to injure the goodwill and reputation of OPs. Moreover, complainant has concealed the material facts and no cause of action arises against answering OPs. It is averred that complainant does not want to continue the policy and is resorting to unfair means and is pressurising the OPs to cancel the policy and return the premium and want to gain undue advantage from OPs. It is further averred that as per clause no. 2.5 of the Policy, the insured was at liberty to return the policy alongwith letter stating the reason for disagreement within a period of 15 days of receipt of the policy and during this ‘Free Look Period’, policy was to be cancelled and the  premium was to be refunded, but complainant  herself did not  opt the said option. It is further averred that complainant is estopped by her own act and conduct to file the present complaint. It is further stated that complainant and her father were fully explained all the terms and conditions of the policy and after going through the detail description of policy, complainant had signed the proposal form with her own free will and conduct. It is averred that contract was concluded between complainant and OPs and insurance policy being a legal document and its terms and conditions are binding both on complainant as well as OPs. However, on merits, OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong, incorrect but admitted before the Forum that they issued policy in question to complainant. Allegations regarding alluring and misguiding the complainant are totally denied and asserted that father of complainant consented to execute proposal form and OPs issued said policy on the basis of proposal form submitted by her father and received first premium of Rs.76,000/-as instalment through cheque. Ops have specifically denied that they withdrew any amount other than the premium of cheque worth Rs.76,000/-. It is further averred by OPs that request of complainant for cancellation of policy was received after free look period and it can not be accepted and OPs have rightly rejected her request for cancellation of said policy and now, complainant is entitled to relief only as per terms and conditions of the policy contract. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service and all the other allegations alongwith allegation regarding relief sought too are refuted with a prayer to dismiss the complaint with costs.

5                           Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-4 and then, closed the evidence.

6                          In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party 1 tendered in evidence, affidavit of Jatin Parkash as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to 5 and then, closed the evidence.

7                            The ld Counsel for complainant argued that being handicapped, complainant is fully dependent on the income of her father for her survival. Her father was a bank employee, who after retirement, received hefty amount as retirement benefits and from this amount his father was upbringing his family. In December, 2014, agent/employee of OPs approached complainant and her father and allured them to purchase their insurance policy with assurance that she would get more benefit from insurance policy than from fixed deposits. They assured that if during the currency of Policy, father of complainant dies, then, in that case, she would get the whole amount deposited with OPs alongwith interest at the rate of 12% and in case of death of complainant, insured amount would go to her father. Being fully allured by assurances of OPs, both complainant and her father purchased an insurance policy from OPs and her father paid a cheque of Rs.76,000/-to OPs as instalment. At that time, OPs took signatures of complainant as well as her father on many blank forms and they also did not disclose any terms and conditions to them. It is further submitted that father of complainant died on 24.07.2015 and she informed about this fact to OPs in November, 2015 alongwith request to refund the amount deposited by her father with them. Employees of OPs took signatures of complainant on several blank forms and assured payment of premium with interest. Thereafter, in February, 2016, when complainant visited the Bank, she came to know that OPs have illegally withdrawn the amount of Rs.75,012/-from the account of her father without her consent and despite the fact that they have full knowledge about his death. Complainant immediately approached OPs and requested them to refund the whole amount with interest, but OPs put off the complainant on one pretext or the other and then finally did not admit her request and refused to refund the amount and told her that her policy has been lapsed and she is not entitled to any relief as sought by her. All this amounts to deficiency in service and it has caused harassment and mental agony to her. She has prayed for accepting the present complaint and stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 4.

8                     To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued before the Forum that complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and now she does not want to continue the policy and is resorting to unfair means by pressurising the OPs to cancel the policy and return the premium and wants to gain undue advantage from OPs. It is further averred that as per clause no. 2.5 of the Policy, the insured was at liberty to return the policy alongwith letter stating the reason for disagreement within a period of 15 days of receipt of the policy and during this ‘Free Look Period’, policy was to be cancelled and premium was to be refunded, but complainant did not opt the said option and now, she is estopped by her own act and conduct to file the present complaint. It is further stated that complainant and her father were fully explained all the terms and conditions of the policy and after going through the detail description of policy, they had signed the proposal form. It is averred that contract was concluded between complainant and OPs and insurance policy being a legal document and its terms and conditions are binding both on complainant as well as OPs. OPs admitted before the Forum that they issued policy in question to complainant, but denied allegations regarding alluring and misguiding the complainant being incorrect and asserted that father of complainant consented to execute proposal form and OPs issued said policy on the basis of proposal form submitted by her father and received first premium of Rs.76,000/-as instalment through cheque. Ops have specifically denied that they withdrew any amount other than the premium of cheque worth Rs.76,000/-. It is further averred by OPs that request of complainant for cancellation of policy was received after free look period and it can not be accepted and OPs have rightly rejected her request for cancellation of said policy and now, complainant is entitled to relief only as per terms and conditions of the policy contract. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9                          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.

10                      The case of complainant is that her father purchased an insurance policy for her and paid a premium of Rs.76000/-to OPs. At the time of Policy, OPs assured them that in case of death of complainant, insured sum would go to her father and in the event of death of her father, she would receive the whole amount deposited with OPs alongwith interest at the rate of 12 % per anum. Father of complainant died and she duly intimated about his death to OPs and also requested them to refund the amount of premium deposited by her father with them. But instead of refunding her amount, OPs illegally withdrew amount of Rs.75,012/-from her father’s account without her consent and when complainant came to know about this fact, she requested them to refund the entire amount with interest, OPs refused to accede to her request and told that she is not entitled for any claim. All this amounts to deficiency in service. On the other hand, plea taken by OPs is that the request of complainant for surrendering the policy came after free look period and after free look period, it cannot be accepted. Moreover, complainant and her father

purchased the said insurance policy after thoroughly going through the detail description and benefits of same and they sent proposal form with their own will and now, complainant has no right to give up this policy.

11                     Complainant has relied upon document Ex C-4, which is death certificate of her father clearly revealing the fact that death of her father occurred on 24.07.2015. Document Ex C-3 is the account statement of bank account of Gurnam Singh/father of complainant from which it is clear that OPs debited the amount of Rs.75,012/-on 19.12.2015 from the account of her father without her consent. Careful perusal of document Ex C-2, which is copy of insurance policy, it is made out that her father paid an amount of Rs.76,000/-to OPs on 17.12.2014 as premium for said policy and death of father occurred on 24.07.2015 and she intimated the same to OPs in November, 2015 and document Ex C-3 i.e account statement itself reveals on the face of it that OPs have illegally withdrawn the amount of Rs.75012/-from the account of her father on 19.12.2015 i.e after being fully aware of the fact that her father had died in July 2015.

                                                              

 

12                                 From the careful perusal of record and in the light of evidence produced by complainant, this Forum is of considered opinion that OPs had no right to withdraw the amount of Rs.75,012/-from the account of her father after his death and this action of OPs is quite arbitrary and illegal. Complainant has succeeded in proving her case and hence, complaint in hand is hereby partly allowed. Ops are directed to refund the amount of Rs.75,012/-debited by them on 19.12.2015from the account of father of complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per anum from 19.12.2015 till final realization with interest. Ops are further directed to pay the surrender value of Policy in question as on November 2015 alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per anum from 1.12.2015 till final realization as per IRDA regulations. Ops are further directed to pay Rs.5000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs.3000/-as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 09.01.2017                 

                                        Member                             President

                    (P Singla)                                (Ajit Aggarwal)