Complainant Kuldeep Pal Singh has filed the present complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act ((hereinafter, called ‘the Act’) seeking the relief from the opposite parties (jointly called the OPs) and namely i) AIG Life Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai through its Managing Director (the OP1) and; ii) Policy Servicing Branch, Jalandhar (the OP2) to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant being the amount of his policy alongwith interest @ 18% P.A.; besides Rs.50,000/- as damages for deficiency in service and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that at the allurement of the representations of the opposite parties he paid first annual premium of Rs.50,000/- to the OP2 vide cheque no.525437 dated 10.02.2012 of Bank of Baroda, Batala. However, upon receipt of the purchased policy on 24.2.2012 it was found that the representation/allurement made by the opposite parties was false since the narration on the face of the policy was not in consonance with the allurement made by their representative. Upon contact the OP2 regretted that some misunderstandings have been reached and as a result, wrong policies have been issued. The complainant was told to return the defective policy and he would be issued fresh policy as per the promised conditions. Further the refund of the policy was demanded within the Free Look Period of 15 days but the opposite parties have failed to return/refund the premium of Rs.50,000/- and hence prompted the present compliant with the desired relief as prayed in above.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed the written reply through their counsel, taking the preliminary objections that the complaint was not legally maintainable since the complainant has tried to misguide and mislead the Forum and thus the complaint need to be dismissed on this ground alone. Further the said policy was issued in accordance with the proposal forms and with due information made to the complainant and presently he was estopped from wriggling out of the terms and conditions of the policies. The present complaint was an after thought just to attract money and refund of premium to which the complainant was not entitled as per terms of the policy. It was further submitted that the complainant Sh.Kuldeep Pal Singh “Life Assured” had submitted to the opposite parties a proposal/application dated 16.2.2012 for the purchase of TATA Maha Life Gold Plan, the proposal was accepted on the standard rates based on the information provided by the LA and consequently a policy was issued bearing policy No.C003773567 dated 20.02.2012 and same commenced on 20.02.2012. The present complaint is an afterthought and has only been filed with the ulterior motives to harass and humiliate the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed with special costs. It was next stated that before acceptance of the proposal by the opposite parties the contents of the proposal/application, illustrations and the addendum forms were read and explained to the complainant. On merits, the same contentions have been repeated while denying and rebutting the other allegations made in the complaint. The opposite parties have also quoted some judgments of the Hon’ble Superior Courts to support their averments made in their written reply and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.
4. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavits of complainant Ex.CW1/A and Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C-1/A to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence.
5. Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Harsimran Singh, Assistant Manager (Legal) Ex.OP1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP-7 and closed the evidence.
6. We have examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have duly considered and perused the arguments as duly put forth by the learned counsels for the present litigants while adjudicating the present complaint. We find that the complainant has categorically/specifically deposed (Ex.C1/A) that Policy # C003773567 dated 24.02.2012 was duly delivered in original to the OP insurers’ local agent/representative Jatinder on 14.03.2012 at the telephonic instructions of Gurpreet Sibel OP Sales Executive for correction as per the disclosed terms and as per the mutual settlement of terms at the time of Policy selling. Moreover, the Policy in question was delivered for cancellation and re-issuance of fresh Policy (with variegated terms) within the 15 day free look-in period (of its receipt) and as such the complainant was entitled to the refund of the paid premium within a reasonable time but the same policy was continued by the OP insurers and that amounted to ‘unfair trade practice’ as envisaged under the Act. Further, the OP insurers could not successfully rebut the complainant’s above depositions by producing some ‘cogent & virtuous’ evidence and instead have cited some ‘case’ specific judgments of the honorable superior courts that have although been respectfully examined but not found relevant to the facts of the present complaint. The above narrative discussions amply prove the ‘statutory’ liability of the OP insurers to refund the policy ‘premium’ and thus we hold them guilty to an adverse award under the Act.
7. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP insurers to pay/refund the Policy’s first receipted full premium amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant besides Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation within 30 days of receipt of the copy of these orders, otherwise the entire awarded amount shall attract additional interest @ 9 % PA form the date of filing of the complaint till actually paid.
8. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
February 11, 2016. Member.
*MK*
