Punjab

Sangrur

CC/128/2014

AJEET SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, DLF PRAMERICA LIC - Opp.Party(s)

AJAY PAL SINGH

04 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

               

                                                Complaint No.  128

                                                Instituted on:    25.02.2014

                                                Decided on:       04.02.2016

 

Ajeet Singh son of Kaur Singh, resident of Village Rajomajra, Tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                                ..Complainant

                                Versus

1.     DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Company Limited, 4^th Floor, Building No.9, Tower B, Cyber City, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon-122002 through its authorised signatory.

2.     DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Sangrur, Near Sunami Gate, Sangrur through its authorised signatory.

                                                        …Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate.

For OPs                    :       Shri Sachin Garg, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Ajeet Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the agent of the OPs approached the complainant in the month of December 2012 at his house and lured the complainant to invest the amount in the policy of the OP by saying that the amount so invested would be double after a period of two years.  It is further averred that on the assurance of the agent of the OPs, complainant invested an amount of Rs.61,000/- with the Ops vide cheque number 003614 dated 18.12.2012, who assured that the policy will be issued after 10/15 days by the OPs.  It is further averred that in the first week of January, 2013, the complainant received the policy bearing number 000199240 dated 28.12.2012 and when he read the terms and conditions it was found totally different than that of explained by the complainant. It is further averred that it was mentioned in the policy that the premium will be paid for 20 years.  Thereafter the complainant went to the office of OP number 2 and handed over a letter dated 24.1.2013 for cancellation of the policy, but the Ops failed to cancel the policy in question.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to cancel the policy in question and to refund the amount of Rs.61,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization and further claimed compensation for mental tension and harassment and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by Ops number 1 and 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and malafide and is nothing, but, an abuse of the process of the law, that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant has no cause of action, that the Ops at the very beginning stated that there has been no negligence in service, whatever on the part of the OPs in dealing with the concerned policy.  It is further stated that the complainant had submitted the application form with the Ops for Dhan Suraksha, a plan offered by the OPs and the features of the plan were duly explained to the complainant.  It is further averred that as per the policy terms and conditions there was a free look period of 15 days, during which the policy owner was entitled to review the policy terms and conditions and could request for a cancellation if dissatisfied with the terms and conditions thereof, but nothing like that was done.   It is further averred that the complainant had given all the relevant details and information in the prescribed form, for which an annual premium amounting to Rs.61,000/- was proposed to be paid for a period of 20 years for a sum assured amounting to Rs.5,43,310/-.  It is further averred that the complainant was at liberty to get the policy cancelled within the free look period, but nothing like that was done and the complainant only applied for cancellation of the policy after the lapse of free look period.  Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C1/A affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of letter dated 11.2.2014, Ex.C-3 copy of receipt, Ex.C-4 copy of cancellation letter dated 24.1.2013, Ex.C-5 copy of premium receipt, Ex.C-6 copy of claim form and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP/1 copy of proposal form, Ex.OP2/ copy of ID proofs, Ex.OP/3 copy of letter dated 28.12.2012, Ex.OP/4 copy of delivery receipts, Ex.OP/5 copy of letter, Ex.OP/6 copy of letter dated 24.2.2012, Ex.OP/7 copy of IRDA rules, Ex.OP/8 to Ex.OP/10 affidavits and closed evidence.

 

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that on the assurance of the agent of the OPs, the complainant invested an amount of Rs.61,000/- being one time investment with the Ops number 1 and 2, which was to be repaid double after the expiry of two years period by the Ops to the complainant.  The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that when in the first week of January, 2013, he received the policy bearing number 000199240 dated 28.12.2012, he found that the terms and conditions of the policy were totally different than that of  explained by the agent of the OPs, as such, the complainant on 24.1.2013 applied for cancellation of the policy vide application, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-4, but the grievance of the complainant is that the Ops did not cancel the policy and further not refunded the amount of the policy, which is said to be a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Whereas on the other hand, the stand of OPs number 1 and 2 is that the complainant received the policy in question in the very first week of January, 2013, whereas the complainant first time approached the OPs for cancellation of the policy only on 24.1.2013 meaning thereby the complainant approached the OPs for cancellation of the policy after the expiry of 15 days free look period assuming that the policy in question was even delivered on 7.1.2013 then he should have applied for cancellation of the policy latest by 22.1.2013. It is worth mentioning here that as per clause 6(2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of policy holders interests) Regulations, 2002, “while acting under regulation 6(1) in forwarding the policy to the insured, the insurer shall inform by letter forwarding the policy that he has a period of 15 days from the date of receipt  of the policy document to review the terms and conditions of the policy and where the insured disagrees to any of those terms and conditions, he has the option to return the policy stating reasons for his objections, when he shall be entitled to a refund of the premium paid, subject to a deduction of a proportionate risk premium for the period on cover and the expenses incurred by the insurer on medical examination of the proposer and stamp duty charges.   In the circumstances, we feel that there is no deficiency in service in not cancelling the policy in question of the complainant as the complainant had applied for cancellation of the policy only after expiry of the free look period of fifteen days.  The learned counsel for the OPs number 1 and 2 has further contended that the complainant had invested/taken the insurance policy for earning huge profits and it cannot be said to be a ‘consumer’ dispute and that the complaint is not maintainable.  The learned counsel for OPs number 1 and 2 has cited Ram Lal Aggarwalia versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited and another III(2013) CPJ 203(NC), wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the complainant took the policy for investment of premium amount in share market which is for speculative gain, as such, it is said that the complainant cannot be held to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is further held that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable.    The same view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission in Consumer Complaint No.96 of 2011, decided on 4.7.2014, titled as Paramjit Kaur versus Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited and another judgment titled as Narinder Kaur and others versus Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited 2015(3) CLT 411).

 

 

6.             In view of the above discussion and legal position as explained above, we find that neither the complainant is a consumer of the OPs nor his complaint is maintainable before this Forum. As such, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.  However, the complainant is at liberty to seek remedy before the competent court of law, if he so desired. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                February 4, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member