DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

,

Subhash Chander r/o #187/2, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

1.                 Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 180-182, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160017 through its Branch Manager

2.                 Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opp. Golf Course, DLF-Phase-V, Sector 43, Gurgaon-122023 through its Managing Director.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for the complainant

                        Sh. Devinder Kumar, Proxy counsel for

Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OPs.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Subhash Chander has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs :-

i)                   to cancel the policy and refund the amount of Rs.99,066/-

ii)                to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation;

iii)              to pay Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that the agent of the opposite parties approached him and offered Aviva Dhan Vridhi Plan.  He represented that, the complainant is required to pay one time premium and he would receive rich dividends.  Accordingly, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.99,066/- to the opposite parties and policy (C-1)  was issued on 19.11.2011.  According to the complainant, the said policy was received on 24.11.2011 and he immediately called the toll free number but nothing was done. On 7.3.2012 the complainant requested for free look cancellation of the policy vide letter (C-2) but the same was not cancelled.  In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           The opposite parties in their written statement did not dispute that the policy in question was issued to the complainant and that the same was received in the year 2011 itself.  However, it has been denied that any request for cancellation of the policy was received at the toll free number. It has been pleaded that the complainant requested them vide letter dated 7.3.2012 to cancel the policy but the same was rejected being beyond the free look period. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record, including written arguments. 

5.                           Admittedly, the policy in question was received by the complainant, on 24.11.2011. The policy is in accordance with the proposal form filled by the complainant.  According to the ld. Counsel, being dis-satisfied, the complainant immediately called the toll free number of the opposite parties, and requested to cancel the policy but they failed to do so.  However, the complainant has failed to place on record any evidence to prove that he made any call at the toll free number of the opposite parties for cancellation of the policy. Even no date of making such a request has been mentioned in the entire complaint.  No doubt, the complainant sent a written request to cancel the policy on 7.3.2012 (C-2) but he was required to exercise his right to opt for cancellation of the policy within 15 days of the receipt of policy.  Admittedly, the said option was exercised after the said period. Therefore, the request for cancellation could not have been entertained, as the same was beyond the prescribed free look period of 15 days. 

6.                           Resultantly, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 

7.                           In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.   

8.                           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

25.4.2013.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER