Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/801/2010

Ranjit Singh S/o Nand Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Gupta

03 Oct 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

 

                                                                                                Complaint No. 801 of 2010.

                                                                                                Date of institution: 30.08.2010

                                                                                                Date of decision: 03.10.2016

 

Ranjit Singh aged about 43 years son of Shri Nand Ram, resident of village Saranvi, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.            

                                                                                                                                                                        …Complainant.

                                                         Versus

 

1. Axis Bank, Branch Office, Sadhaura, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagasr through its Branch Manager.
2. Axis Bank, Head Office Mumbai, through its Chairman.
3. Tarun Kumar,
4. Jitender Kumar both residents of C/o Axis Bank Sadhaura, Tehsil Bilaspur, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.
5.  Met Life India Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office Brigade Seshamahai, 5, Vani Vilas Road, Basavangudi, banglore 560004, through its Director.      

 

                                                                                                                                                             …Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:           Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                        Defense of respondent No.1 struck off.

                        Respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 already ex-parte

                        Sh. Satish Sangwan, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.5.

 

ORDER (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

 

1.                     Complainant Ranjit Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986.   

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the respondents No. 3 & 4 (hereinafter referred as Ops No.3 & 4) asked the complainant to withdraw the amount lying in his saving bank account with Haryana Gramin Bank Fatehgarh Tumbi and to deposit the same in FD account of the OP Bank  for a period of 8 years on the pretext that rate of interest provided by the Op Bank will not only be higher than the interest given by the Haryana Gramin Bank but also told the complainant that after 6 months, the  OP Bank will issue a credit card valuing Rs. 30,000/- to him. On the assurance given by the Ops No.3 & 4, the complainant withdrew an amount of Rs. 60,000/- from his Haryana Gramin Bank and Rs. 10,000/- from his bank account of the Op Bank and in this way an amount of Rs. 70,000/- was given to the Ops No.3 & 4 for the investment with the Op Bank in the FD account for a period of 8 years. After getting the amount, Ops No.3 & 4 assured the complainant that receipt of the FDR will be handed over to him within a period of 15 days. However, after few days complainant was surprised to receive a policy document from the Met Life India Insurance Company Ltd. and on receiving the same immediately the complainant rushed to OP bank and explained the whole story but the Ops No.3 and 4 did not give any satisfactory reply. In this way, all the Ops had played a fraud with the complainant by misguiding him by depositing his hard money in the Met Life India Insurance Company Limited. After that complainant visited so many times for returning the amount of Rs. 70,000/- but all in vain. A legal notice was also served. Lastly, prayed for directing the Ops to refund the sum of Rs. 70,000/- alongwith interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.  Hence this complaint.

3.                     In support of his version, complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of forwarding letter sending the policy documents dated 16.03.2010 alongwith schedule of the policy, proposal form as Annexure C-1, Copy of legal notice dated 21.05.2010 as Annexure C-2, photo copy of reply to the legal notice as Annexure C-3 and closed his evidence.

4.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared but failed to file written statement, hence his defence was struck off vide order dated 10.01.2011.

5                      Whereas Ops No.2 to 4 failed to appear despite service, hence they were also proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 10.11.2010, 23.07.2014 abd 20.07.2011 respectively.

6                      OP No.5 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as PNB Met Life India Insurance Company Ltd. is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at brigade Seshamahai, 5, Vani Vilas Road, Basavangudi, Banglore and doing the business of insurance as per rule and regulations of the IRDA. The complaint of the complainant is barred by limitation; not maintainable, without jurisdiction, complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer; as per clause 6(2) of the IRDA Regulations 2002, the insurer informed by letter that insured has a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents to review the term and condition of the policy and where the insured disagrees to any of those terms and conditions, he has the option to return the policy stating reason of his objection, then the insurer shall be entitled to  refund of the premium paid, subject only to a deduction of 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. The similar free look provision has been incorporated by the OP no.5 in clause No.7.1 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy i.e. “Met Easy Plus” plan taken by the complainant which clearly states that “you have a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy document to review the terms and conditions of this policy. If you have any objection to any of the terms and conditions you have option to return the policy stating the reasons for the objections and you shall be entitled to refund of the premium paid subject to deduction of the stamp duty charges etc. All your rights under this policy shall immediately stand extinguished at the cancellation of the policy.” However, in the present complaint, the complainant despite of receipt of the policy document, has not raised any objection or complaint during the free look period. Hence, it was presumed that the contract of insurance which we had with the complainant was legally concluded. It has been further mentioned that after understanding the terms and conditions of our product “ Met Easy Plus”, the complainant had voluntarily applied for a policy by voluntarily filling up proposal form bearing No. 303116615 and paid a modal premium of Rs. 70,000/- annually towards the premium under the said plan for a proposed sum insured amounting to Rs. 7,00,000/-. The complainant has also signed the declaration of unit plus product and benefit illustration form. Therefore, he was well aware of all the terms and conditions pertaining to the given policy. After that, OP No.5 had issued an insurance policy bearing No. 20286755 on 13.03.2010 to the complainant for the premium paying term of 25 years and thereafter all the policy terms and conditions were sent to the complainant on 18.03.2010. After that, complainant did not remit the payment towards the premium which was due on 13.03.2011 as a result of which the policy was lapsed. The complainant did not reinstate the policy within the reinstatement window period, the policy was auto foreclosed on 13.03.2013 and foreclosure amount of Rs. 391.06 was paid to the complainant vide cheque No. 177045 dated 21.03.2013. In this way, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.5 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7.                     In support of its version, counsel for Op No.5 tendered into evidence short affidavit of M. Udaiyakumar Jain Legal and constituted attorney of PNB MetLife India Ins. Co. Limited as Annexure RW5/A and photocopies of documents such as Proposal form as Annexure R.5/1, Copy of applicant declaration as Annexure R5/2 and R5/3, Copy of Welcome letter dated 17.06.2010 as Annexure R5/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.5.

8.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and counsel for Op No.5 and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

9.                     It is not disputed that complainant obtained a Met Easy Plus Life policy bearing No. 20286755 on 13.03.2010(Annexure R-5/4) and paid Rs. 70000/- to the OPs Insurance Company and submitted the proposal Form(Annexure R-5/1). It is also not disputed that complainant lodged his complaint for cancellation of policy with request for refund of Rs. 70,000/- taken from the complainant under misrepresentation of facts by the agents/OP no. 3 - 4 of the OP no. 5 Insurance Company on 21.05.2010 near about within 2 months vide registered post, which is evident from copy of registered AD legal notice dated 21.05.2010 (Annexure C-2) and admitted by the OP Insurance Company in the letter issued on dated 17.06.2010 (Annexure R5/4).

10.                   The first plea of op no.5 Insurance Company is that the complainant despite  receipt of the policy document has not raised any objections during the free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy document to review the terms and conditions of this policy, hence, it was presumed that the contract of insurance which they had with the complainant was legally concluded and the complainant had voluntarily applied for a Insurance policy i.e. Met Easy Plus’’ by voluntarily filling up proposal form bearing No. 303116615 and paid a modal premium of Rs. 70,000/- annually towards the premium under the said plan for a proposed sum insured amounting to Rs. 7, 00,000/-. So, the request of the complainant has been rightly rejected by the OP no.5 Insurance Company as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question and Ld. Counsel for the op no.5 referred the case law titled as Life Insurance Corporation of India Versus Surinder Kaur & Others Civil Appeal No. 5334 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 7865-7866 of 2005), First appeal No. A/11/300 in LIC of India Vs. Ashish Aggarwal, in which it has been held that it is not material who fills the proposal form, it is material to give the correct information and it is the responsibility of the insured. Further referred the case law titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Subhash Chandra R.P. No. 469/2006, General Assurance Society Limited Vs. Chandumall Jain & Another reported in (1966) CSCR 500. This plea of the insurance company is not tenable because Mere filing the forwarding / welcome letter it cannot be presumed that policy documents were handed over or delivered to the complainant on the same day. Even the op no.5 Insurance Company has totally failed to convince to this forum that on what date and by which mode, the policy documents were handed over or dispatched to the complainant. Neither any postal receipt nor any cogent documentary evidence by way affidavit of any person or officials who handed over the policy documents to the complainant, has been placed on file to prove the same. However, OP no.5 Met Life India Insurance Company Limited has placed on file a Copy of Welcome letter (Annexure R5/4) which is of dated 17.06.2010, from the perusal of this letter it is clear that policy documents were delivered to the complainant through this letter whereas prior to this, Complainant made oral as well as documentary (by way of legal notice dated 2.05.2010 Annexure C-2 request to refund the amount of Rs.70,000/-.So, the plea that the complainant, despite receipt of the policy document, has not raised any objection during the free look period  of 15 days have no weightage in the eye of law. Hence, we are of the considered view that complainant has duly exercised his option for cancellation of the policy in question in “Free Look Period”. The law cited by the counsel for the OPS is not disputed but not helpful in the present case.  

11.                   Further, second plea of the op no. 5 Insurance Company that after paying first premium, complainant did not remit the payment towards the premium which was due on 13.03.2011 as a result of which the policy was in lapsed mode and complainant did not reinstate the policy within the reinstatement window period, the policy was auto foreclosed on 13.03.2013 and foreclosure amount of Rs. 391.06 was paid to the complainant vide cheque No. 177045 dated 21.03.2013 is also not tenable as op no.5 insurance Co. has not placed on file any documents from which this forum presume may that op no.5 insurance company had already invested the amount collected from the complainant. We have perused the Proposal form (Annexure R5/1) in which it has been shown under the Fund Allocation Head 3.6 that complainant has made his option to invest the money in BALANCER II Fund and as per schedule of the insurance policy entire 100% amount shall be invested in Medium Risk by way of in Govt. and other debt Security i.e Equities (60%) and Money market instruments (40%) meaning thereby that OP No. 5 was directed to invested the money collected from the complainant in these funds but no such documents have been placed on file. Moreover, for the sake of arguments, if we presume, even then entire amount of Rs.70,000/- cannot be become at the level of Rs. 391.06 within a period of one(1) year only as alleged by the op no. 5 in para no. 5 of its written statement. No account statement has been filed by the op no.5 to prove the same.  

12.                   In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the OP no.5 Insurance Company has wrongly rejected the request of the complainant for cancellation of the policy in question and has not refunded the premium amount of Rs. 70,000/- after deducting the stamp duty, service charges, the cost of medical expenses, and administrative charges if any, as applicable in the case of cancellation of the policy under Free Look Period as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

 13.                  Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP no.5 Insurance Company to refund the premium amount of Rs. 70,000/- to the complainant after deducting the stamp duty, medical expenses, administrative charges, if any, alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 30.08.2010 till its realization. Further OPs insurance Company is directed to pay Rs. 5000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 03.10.2016.

                                                                       

                                                (S.C.SHARMA                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                 MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT

                                                                                                  DCDRF, Yamuna Nagar.