Haryana

Karnal

CC/158/2020

Amandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Anil Kumar Vats, Manager, Indusind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Ankit Sahni

04 Aug 2022

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 158 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.13.03.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:04.08.2022

 

Amandeep Singh son of Shri Jarnail Singh, resident of village Jhansa, Tehsil Ismilabad, District Kurukshetra. Aadhar no.5386 5747 4294.

                                               …….Complainant.                  Versus

 

1.     Anil Kumar Vats, Manager, Indusind Bank, Chammu Kalan, Ismilabad, District Kurukshetra.

2.     Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Ismilabad, District Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager.

3.     Tata AIA Life Insurance Company, Head Office, Karnal through its Manager.

4.     Deepak Kumar, Area Agent of TATa AIA Life Insurance Company, Ismilabad, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Ankit Sahni, counsel for the complainant.

                           OPs no.1, 2 and 4 given up.

                   Shri Vikas Bakshi, counsel for the OP no.3.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on averments complainant is having bank account in Indusind Bank, Chammu Kalan, District Kurukshetra. OP no.1 always pressurized the complainant to invest the amount in saving policy. OP no.4, who is working as Agent of TATA AIA Life Insurance Company, Ismilabad Kurukshetra and OP no.1 pressured the complainant to invest the money of complainant in the saving policy in the name of his son Harjot. They told the complainant that complainant has to pay Rs.60,000/- per year upto 12 years and after the expiry of 12 years in the 13^th year the complainant will get the amount of Rs.21 lakhs. On the assurance of OP no.1 and 4, complainant purchased the policy in the name of his son who is aged 2 years. OP no.1 obtained the two blank signed cheques from the complainant and they told that the amount will be taken as Rs.60,000/- but they withdrew the amount of Rs.64,199/- from the account of the complainant. Thereafter, complainant came to know on 11.09.2019 that the complainant will get Rs.54,000/- after the expiry of 12 years every year uptil 12 years. It is further averred that the aforesaid policy is for 24 years and not for 13 years as wrongfully told by the OPs about the false benefits and conditions of the policy. Thereafter, complainant requested the OPs for the closing of the said policy, then they told to the complainant go in the head office at Karnal and submitted all the documents and the officials of the OPs assured the complainant that the policy will be closed. On 24.09.2019 the complainant went to the office of OP no.3 at Karnal and submitted all the documents as required by the OP and they assured that the complainant will get the aforesaid amount very soon, but till today complainant has not received any amount. On 22.11.2019, complainant went to the office of OP no.3 and requested to release the amount but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. On 18.12.2019, complainant moved an application to concerned police station and thereafter the SHO of Police Station called both the parties, where Manger of the TATA AIA Life Insurance Co. told there that the policy will be cancelled, if the complainant moved a fresh application for the cancellation of the policy and complainant would get the amount, then complainant wrote an application under the surveillance of the Manager, in which it was assured that the amount will be refunded within a week from the date of filing of the application. Ultimately, in the month of February, 2020 the officials of the OPs sent a letter to the complainant that the policy will be cancelled within a week, but till today complainant has not received any amount. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to pay Rs.64199/- as insured amount of the policy alongwith interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and litigation costs.

2.             Learned counsel for complainant has given up the OPs no.1, 2 and 4 from the array of the parties being unnecessary parties, vide his statement dated 25.02.2021 and 10.03.2021.

3.             OP no.2 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP no.3 had received proposal form dated 02.08.2019 from Amandeep Singh for the purchase of “Tata AIA Life Insurance Diamond Saving Plan” on the life of his minor son Harjot Singh. The said proposal form was submitted electronically hence, the signature of applicant/proposer were taken on ‘Customer Declaration Form’ dated 02.08.2019. It is further pleaded that prior to applying for the insurance policy in question the features and benefits as well as returns were also explained to complainant through the “Benefit Illustration’ dated 02.08.2019. The complainant had duly declared in the Customer Declaration Form that he has read relevant documentation/information and has understood the product features and benefits. It is further pleaded that at the time of applying for the purchase of the insurance policy in question the complainant also paid an amount of Rs.64119/- as initial premium amount through cheque no.245329 dated 02.08.2019. It is further pleaded that based on the answers and disclosures given by the proposer, said proposal for issuance of the main plan i.e. “Tata AIA Life Insurance Diamond Saving Plan” was accepted on standard rate by OP no.3 and consequently the policy in question was issued bearing no.C259271622 having date of commencement of 05.08.2019. After issuance of the policy in question the policy bond containing complete terms and conditions was sent to the complainant by Speed Post. While forwarding the policy documents containing complete terms and conditions of the policy a statutory 15 days “Freelook In” period was also provided to the policy holder thereby giving him a period of 15 days from the date of delivery of policy documents to review the policy terms and conditions. However, the policy holder did not return the policy documents for a refund of premium during the said 15 days freelook period. The renewal premium payment in the policy in question was due on 05.08.2020 which the complainant failed to pay. Even the grace period has also elapsed. Hence, the policy was lapsed vide letter dated 04.09.2020. There is no breach of terms and condition on the part of the OP no.3, neither did at any time the insurance cover was denied on the life of the insured. It is further pleaded that prior to submitting the proposal form, the contents of proposal form as well as the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question alongwith the riders were explained to the insured. It is further pleaded that complainant himself gave a cheque for an amount of Rs.64119/- dated 02.08.2019, vide cheque no.245329 drawn on Indusind Bank Ltd. Toli Chowki, Hyderabad. It is further pleaded that complainant never requested for cancellation of the policy on 24.09.2019. He has also not able to produce any copy of letter for cancellation as alleged by him in his complaint. No official of the OP no.3 was called in the police station as alleged by the complainant. No such assurance of cancellation of policy was given to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of insurance certificate Ex.C1, copy of application to Branch Manager Ex.C2, copy of application to Superintendent of Police Ex.C3, copy of application of RTI Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 22.09.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Harsimran Singh Sr. Manager Ex.OP3/1, authority letter Ex.OP1, copy of proposal form Ex.OP2, copy of customer declaration form Ex.OP3, copy of TATA AIA Life Insurance Diamond Savings Plan Ex.OP4, copy of cheque of Rs.64199/- Ex.OP5, copy of insurance policy Ex.OP6, copy of Lapsation notice Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence on 09.03.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant is having bank account in Indusind Bank, Chammu Kalan, District Kurukshetra. OPs no.1 and 4 pressured the complainant to invest his money in saving policy. OPs told the complainant that complainant has to pay Rs.60,000/- per year upto 12 years and after the expiry of 12 years in the 13^th year the complainant will get the amount of Rs.21 lakhs. On the assurance of OPs no.1 and 4, complainant purchased the policy in the name of his son namely Harjot. Thereafter, complainant came to know on 11.09.2019 that the complainant will get Rs.54,000/- every year upto 12 years after the expiry of 12 years. Complainant also came to know that the policy is for 24 years and not for 13 years. Thereafter, complainant requested the OPs for the closing of the said policy, then on asking of the OPs on 24.09.2019 the complainant went to the office of OP no.3 at Karnal and submitted all the documents and they assured that the complainant will get the aforesaid amount very soon, but till today complainant has not received any amount. On 18.12.2019, complainant moved an application to concerned police station and thereafter the SHO of Police Station called both the parties, where Manger of the TATA AIA Life Insurance Co. told there that the policy will be cancelled, if the complainant moved a fresh application for the cancellation of the policy and complainant would get the amount, then complainant wrote an application under the surveillance of the Manager, in which it was assured that the amount will be refunded within a week from the date of filing of the application, but till today complainant has not received any amount and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.3, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that OP no.3 had received proposal form dated 02.08.2019 from Amandeep Singh for the purchase of “Tata AIA Life Insurance Diamond Saving Plan” on the life of his minor son Harjot Singh. He further argued that prior to applying for the insurance policy in question the features and benefits as well as returns were also explained to complainant through the “Benefit Illustration’ dated 02.08.2019. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.64119/- as initial premium amount and consequently the policy in question was issued having date of commencement of 05.08.2019. After issuance of the policy in question the policy bond containing complete terms and conditions was sent to the complainant by Speed Post. While forwarding the policy documents containing complete terms and conditions of the policy a statutory 15 days “Freelook In” period was also provided to the policy holder thereby giving him a period of 15 days from the date of delivery of policy documents to review the policy terms and conditions. However, the policy holder did not return the policy documents for a refund of premium during the said 15 days freelook period. The renewal premium payment in the policy in question was due on 05.08.2020 which the complainant failed to pay. Even the grace period has also elapsed. Hence, the policy was lapsed vide letter dated 04.09.2020. There is no breach of terms and condition on the part of the OP no.3, neither did at any time the insurance cover was denied on the life of the insured.  He further argued that prior to submitting the proposal form, the contents of proposal form as well as the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question alongwith the riders were explained to the insured. He further argued that complainant never requested for cancellation of the policy on 24.09.2019. He has also not able to produce any copy of letter for cancellation as alleged by him in his complaint. No official of the OP no.3 was called in the police station as alleged by the complainant. No such assurance of cancellation of policy was given to the complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

11.           Admittedly, the policy in question was issued to the complainant on 02.08.2019 on receipt of premium amount of Rs.64119/-. OPs have denied to refund the premium amount on the ground that complainant has not approached the OPs within freelook period of fifteen days for cancellation of the policy in question.

12.           The OPs have taken a plea that complainant did not approach the OPs for cancellation of the policy within freelook period. The onus to prove its version lies upon the OPs but OPs have miserably failed to prove that all the terms and conditions of the policy were explained and supplied to the complainant at the time of obtaining the policy, by leading cogent and convincing evidence.  Moreover, OPs to prove its version has not placed on file any postal receipt or any other document through which they had supplied the terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant within time and on receipt of the policy in question, complainant did not approach to the OPs for cancellation of the policy within freelook period.  Hence, plea taken by the OPs has no force. In this regard, we relied upon case titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd Versus Anil Manglunia 2016 (1) CPR 150 (NC),wherein Hon’ble National Commission held that OPs failed to provide policy clause to the complainant and rejected genuine claim of the complainant. Hence, they do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

13.           Rather, as per the version of the complainant that OPs have not supplied the terms and conditions of the policy in question  at the time of purchasing the policy in question. The agent of the OPs has allured the complainant and wrongfully explained the benefit of the policy. On receiving the policy in question, the complainant immediately approached the OPs for cancellation of the policy in question. To prove his version complainant has relied upon the applications Ex.C2 to Ex.C4. It is evident from the application Ex.C3 that the policy in question has been received by the complainant on 11.09.2019. It is also evident from the application Ex.C2 that complainant made a submission on 24.09.2019 for cancellation of the policy in question, which is well within the freelook period. Hence, the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by not refunding the premium amount to the complainant. Thus, the complainant is entitled for refund of the premium deposited at the time of purchasing the policy alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.

14.           Thus, as a sequel to above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.3 to pay Rs.64,199/- (Rs. sixty four thousand one hundred ninety nine only) to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposition till its realization. We further direct the OP no.3 to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.5500/- for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 04.08.2022

                                                                       

                                                                      President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)               (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

      Member                         Member