Haryana

Karnal

165/12

Balbir Singh S/o Maam Raj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited., 2 Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Kuldeep singh

03 Nov 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                           Complaint No.165 of 2012

                                                                      Date of Instt. 26.3.2012

                                                           Date of decision:04.03.2015

 

Balbir Singh son of  Sh.Maam Raj resident of village Ahbli Khalsa tehsil Nilokheri  District Karnal.

                                                                     ……..Complainant.

                                                Vs.

1. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

2.Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, Plot No.271, Industrial Area, Panchkula Phase-II, Panchkula Haryana  PIN CODE 134015, through its authorized signatory/ Director.

 

                                                                   …..Opposite Parties.

 

                                      Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                                      Protection Act.

 

Before           Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.

                    Sh.Subhash Chander Sharma       ……Member.

 

Argued by:-    Sh.Kuldeep Singh   Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. N.K.Zak Advocate for the OPs.

ORDER         

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that the complainant obtained the insurance policy of the OPs and paid premium of Rs.25000/- on 12.3.2010 and on 23.3.2010 the complainant moved an application to return the original documents and to give policy and again on 7.4.2010 the complainant again moved application and the policy was received by the complainant on 20.4.2010 and when the complainant went through the  conditions of the said policy, then he came to know that the sum assured has been mentioned as Rs.1,25,000/- instead of Rs.12,50,000/- and thereafter the complainant gave application dated 26.4.2010 to rectify the policy or to  surrender the said policy within the free look period but the Ops have not returned the  premium which tantamounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Thus, the complainant alleging deficiency in services has filed the present complaint against the Ops with a prayer to direct the Ops to return the premium amount alongwith compensation for the harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses. He has also tendered his affidavit in support of the contents of the complaint alongwith certain other documents.

 

2.                 On notice the Ops appeared and filed written statement raising the preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands; that the complainant was estopped by his own act and  conduct from filing the present complaint and that the complaint was not legally maintainable; that the complaint was liable to be dismissed on the technical grounds as the complainant is not consumer as defined in Section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and to try the present complaint and that the complainant was estopped by his own act and conduct from filing of the present complaint etc.

 

                    On merits, it was contended that the policy was issued to the complainant on 18.3.2010 in accordance with the details as mentioned in the proposal form. The policy of life insurance was dispatched on 28.3.2010 vide Express IT Courier bearing No. AWB No. 3616467223. However, the same was returned to the office of Ops and received as “Return to origin”. The policy of insurance was again re-dispatched on 15.4.2010 vide Speed Post bearing AWB  No.EP083483238IN. The same was duly received by the complainant and this fact of having received the policy bond has never been disputed by the complainant and in fact admitted in the instant complaint. It was thus contended that option to cancel the policy within free look period was not exercised and as such the complainant was not entitled to get the said policy cancelled. Thus, it was contended that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and dismissal of the complaint has been sought. Sh.Pawan Kumar Sharma, Branch Manager of the OP has also tendered his affidavit in support of the contentions made in the complaint.

 

3.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties  and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

4.                 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint  alleging deficiency in services u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act  against the Ops  on the grounds  that the complainant obtained the insurance policy of the OP and paid premium of Rs.25000/- on 12.3.2010 and on 23.3.2010 the complainant moved an application to return the original documents and to give policy and again on 7.4.2010 the complainant again moved application and the policy was received by the complainant on 20.4.2010 and when the complainant went through the  conditions of the said policy, then he came to know that the sum assured has been mentioned as Rs.1,25,000/- instead of Rs.12,50,000/- and thereafter the complainant gave application dated 26.4.2010 either to rectify the policy or to  surrender the said policy within the free look period but the Ops have not returned the  premium which tantamounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops

 

                   However, as per contention of the Ops the option to cancel the policy within free look period was not exercised by the complainant and as such the complainant was not entitled to et the said policy and as such there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

 

5.                 However, after going through the evidence and circumstances of the case, it is evident that Ops issued the policy Ex. C2 dated 26.3.2010 but the said policy was not received by the complainant and the complainant reported the matter to the Ops vide letter dated 23.3.2010 Ex.C9 and demanded the original policy. Secondly also the complainant made request to the OP vide request Ex/C10 dated 7.4.2010 demanding the policy. However, it has come in evidence that Ops dispatched the policy on 28.3.2010 but the same was returned back and again the Ops sent the policy on 14.5.2010 which was received by the complainant. Therefore, as per admission on the part of the Ops, the  policy dispatched on 15.4.2010 was received by the complainant  may be after 2/3 days and the complainant exercised his option within the free look period of 15 days on 26.4.2010 vide Ex.C11. Therefore, since the complainant has exercised his option to get the premium back within 15 days of free look period and as such the Ops were liable to refund the said premium amount in terms of the policy and on account of non refunding the said premium amount we hold that there was deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

 

6.                 Therefore, as a sequel to our above findings, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to refund the premium amount to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum  from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 26.3.2012 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled  for a sum of  Rs.2200/- towards legal fee and litigation expenses. The Ops shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the 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: 04.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Subhash Chander Sharma)

                             Member.

 

 

Argued by:-    Sh.Kuldeep Singh   Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. N.K.Zak Advocate for the OPs.

 

                   Arguments in part heard. For remaining arguments, the case is adjourned to 4.3.2015.

Announced
dated: 03.03.2015                                                                            

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Subhash Chander Sharma)

                             Member.

 

Argued by:-    Sh.Kuldeep Singh   Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. N.K.Zak Advocate for the OPs.

 

                   Remaining arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated: 04.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Subhash Chander Sharma)

                             Member.