BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.310-14

Date of Institution:03-06-2014

Date of Decision:01-04-2015

Sh.Des Raj Pal son of Sh.Satya Narayan Pal, residentof H.No. 1611, Street No.8, Judge Nagar, Near Damuhi Shivala Mandir, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, West Hub, 2^nd Floor, Bajaj Finserv, Survey # 208/1-B, Behind Weikfield it building, Viman Nagar, Nagar Road, PUNE, Maharashtra, Pin Code-410014 through its Managing Director/ Manager/ Incharge.
2. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited 3D Floor, Balaji Chambers, SCO-3, District Shopping Complex, Block-B, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, through is Branch Manager/ Person Over All Incharge.    

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Munish Kohli, Advocate

              For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Akhilesh Vyas, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member     

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Des Raj Pal under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that the complainant obtained policy from Opposite Parties  through their local branch office i.e. Opposite Party No.2 having Policy No.0271324832 for premium paying term of 15 years by paying annual premium of Rs.12,649.14 on 19.8.2012. Complainant alleges that he did not receive the policy documents from Opposite Parties  within the statutory period of 15 days. The complainant, therefore, approached the Opposite Parties  several times to get his invested money back and the branch office of Opposite Party assured the complainant to look into the matter and to refund the same at the earliest, but the Opposite Parties  did not refund the amount. On 27.8.2012, the complainant visited the Secure Solutions, Ebony Mall, Amritsar for receiving the policy documents, but instead of providing the policy documents, they handed over the duplicate copy of policy documents to the complainant. The complainant being not satisfied with the said act and conduct of the Opposite Parties  requested the Opposite Parties  on 31.8.2012 i.e. well within free look period of 15 days to get the invested money refunded, but the Opposite Parties vide their reply dated 12.10.2012 alleged that the policy has been delivered on 26.6.2012, but in fact, no such policy documents were ever  received by the complainant from the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, the complainant also approached the office of the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh vide letter dated 30.6.2013 where the Opposite Parties  have tendered a document in which it has been alleged by the Opposite Parties  that they have delivered the policy documents to the complainant on 20.6.2012 and later on, an order dated 2.9.2013 was passed by Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh in which it is held by Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh that the policy documents were received by the complainant on 25.6.2012. From the said facts, it is crystal clear that the Opposite Parties are dilly delaying the matter on one false pretext or the other.                  Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.12,649.14 invested by the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.   Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the original policy bound containing express & agreed terms of the policy were duly dispatched to the complainant at the address mentioned on the proposal form insurance vide Speed Post No. EA9251164501N dated 15.6.2012 and the same was delivered to the complainant on 20.6.2012 as per the confirmation received from the Postal Authority, whereas a complaint was filed as an afterthought on 5.9.2012 just to cover up his own lapses and to derive illegal financial gains contrary to the agreed terms and conditions of the contract. The complainant was offered 15 days free look cancellation period  from the date of receipt of the policy bound as per the provisions of the Protection of Policy Holder’s Interests Regulations, 2002, but the complainant  being fully satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy document received by him on 20.6.2012, did not submit any request for free look cancellation with in the permissible period of 15 days which expired on 5.7.2012. The request for cancellation of the policy was received by the company on 5.9.2012 after more than 2½ months of commencement of the risk under the policy which was legally and rightly rejected by the Opposite Parties strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy as well as the provisions of the Protection of Policy Holder’s Interests Regulations 2002. Thus, the request of the complainant for free look cancellation was rightly rejected being beyond the permissible free look period and the intimation of the same was sent  to the complainant vide letter dated 12.10.2012.   While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C17 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sandeep Gupta, Operations Manager Ex.OP1,2/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP1,2/2 to Ex.OP1,2/ 5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that  complainant got policy from the opposite party on payment of premium of Rs. 12,649.14 on 19.8.2012 with premium paying term 15 years , frequency of premium yearly. The complainant alleges that he was not issued any Insurance policy by the opposite party. He approached the opposite party number of times but the opposite party except insurance could not furnish the policy documents to the complainant. Thereafter on 27.8.2012 the complainant visited the Secure Solutions, Ebony Mall, Amritsar for receiving the policy documents but instead of providing the policy documents, they handed over duplicate copy of the policy documents to the complainant. On 27.8.2012 the complainant went through the terms and conditions of the policy, he was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy as well as conduct of the opposite party. So he requested the opposite party on 31.8.2012 for cancellation of the policy and refund of the amount of premium. But the opposite party vide letter dated 12.10.2012 Ex.C-5 alleged that the policy documents have been delivered to the complainant on 26.6.2012 but the complainant has not applied for cancellation of the policy within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents. The complainant alleges that he never received the policy documents (welcome kit from the opposite party). The complainant approached the Insurance Ombudsman Chandigarh vide letter dated 30.6.2013 Ex.C-2. The Insurance Ombudsman passed order dated 2.9.2013  Ex.C-7 vide which it was held that the policy documents were received by the complainant on 25.6.2012 as stated by the opposite party but he sent his request for cancellation of the policy on 5.9.2012 which was beyond free look period. Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted that the opposite party has been changing its stands as in the letter dated 12.10.2012 Ex.C-5 opposite party has stated that the policy documents were delivered to the complainant on 26.6.2012 whereas before the Insurance Ombudsman the opposite party has stated that the policy documents were delivered to the complainant on 25.6.2012, however in the written version the opposite party has stated that the policy documents were delivered to the complainant on 20.6.2012. Whereas the opposite party could not produce any documents to prove that the policy documents were delivered to the complainant nor the opposite party has produced any affidavit of the person, who delivered the policy documents to the complainant. Opposite party has, therefore, wrongly rejected the request of the complainant for cancellation of the policy which was made by the complainant to the opposite party for the cancellation of the policy within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that in order to obtain the insurance policy the complainant filled in and signed the proposal form in which all the terms and conditions of the policy have been clearly mentioned. The policy bond containing terms and conditions of the policy were duly despatched to the complainant vide speed post No.EA925116450IN dated 15.6.2012 and the same were delivered to the complainant on 20.6.2012 as per confirmation report of Indian Postal Authorities Ex.OP1,2/4, whereas the complaint was filed on 5.9.2012 by the complainant just to cover up his own lapse. The request for cancellation of the policy was received by the opposite party on 5.9.2012 i.e.after more than two and half months of the commencement of risk under the policy. The opposite party was, therefore, justified in rejecting the request of the complainant for cancellation of the policy. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant got insurance policy from the Opposite Parties  on 19.8.2012 on payment   of premium of Rs. 12,649.14. The premium payment term of the policy was 15 years and frequency of premium was yearly. Complainant alleges that he was not issued the insurance policy by the Opposite Parties. He approached, the Opposite Parties  number of times in this regard, but the Opposite Parties  could not deliver the policy documents to the complainant. On 27.8.2012 the complainant visited the Secure Solutions, Ebony Mall, Amritsar to get the policy documents,  but instead of providing the policy documents, they handed over duplicate copy of the policy documents to the complainant. On 27.8.2012 the complainant went through the terms and conditions of the policy, he was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy as well as conduct of the opposite parties, so he requested the opposite parties on 31.8.2012 for cancellation of the policy and refund of the amount of premium. But the opposite party vide letter dated 12.10.2012 Ex.C-5 told the complainant that the policy documents have been delivered to the complainant on 26.6.2012, but the complainant has not applied for cancellation of the policy within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents, so the request of the complainant for cancellation of the policy can not be accepted. The complainant thus approached the Insurance Ombudsman Chandigarh vide letter dated 30.6.2013 Ex.C-2 and the  Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh  passed order dated 2.9.2013  Ex.C-7 vide which it was held that the policy documents were received by the complainant on 25.6.2012 as stated by the opposite party,  but he sent his request for cancellation of the policy which was received by the Opposite Parties  on 5.9.2012, which was beyond free look period. As such, Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant.
9.   Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted that the opposite party has been changing its stand as in the letter dated 12.10.2012 Ex.C-5 opposite party has stated that the policy documents were delivered to the complainant on 26.6.2012 whereas before the Insurance Ombudsman the opposite party has stated that the policy documents were delivered to the complainant on 25.6.2012, however in the written version the opposite party has stated that the policy documents were delivered to the complainant on 20.6.2012. The opposite party could not produce any document to prove that the policy documents were delivered to the complainant nor the opposite parties  have produced any affidavit of the person, who delivered the policy documents to the complainant. Opposite party has, therefore, wrongly rejected the request of the complainant for cancellation of the policy which was made by the complainant to the opposite party for the cancellation of the policy within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents.
10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant alleged that he has not received the original policy documents from the Opposite Parties  whereas the Opposite Parties  have alleged that they have sent the policy documents to the complainant vide Speed Post No. EA9251164501N dated 15.6.2012 and the same was delivered to the complainant on 20.6.2012 as mentioned by the Opposite Parties  in their written version para No.2. Whereas before the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh, the Opposite Parties  have submitted that the policy documents were delivered to the complainant on 25.6.2012. Further, the Opposite Parties  in their letter dated 12.10.2012 Ex.C5 have stated that the policy documents were delivered to the complainant on 26.6.2012. Opposite Parties could not produce or examine any person from the Post Office in the form of Post Man nor filed any affidavit of post man who delivered the policy documents to the complainant nor the Opposite Parties  could produce any delivery book to prove that Post Man delivered the policy documents  to the complainant or  to any other person and what was the relation of that person with the complainant. The Opposite Parties  have produced only Detailed Track Event of India Post Ex.OP1,2/4 which only states that the bags were received by Amritsar GPO on 20.6.2012, but it does not show whether the policy documents of the complainant were being contained in that bag or whether, the said documents were delivered to the complainant. This document is totally silent about this fact. It has been held by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in First Appeal No. 1602 of 2012 decided on 22.1.2013 titled as ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jasjit Walia that where a person who delivered the shipment has not been produced nor his affidavit has been filed and where the shipment has been delivered to 3rd  person, same can not be considered as the delivery of the policy to the complainant. Apart from this it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 2737 of 2007 decided on 29.8.2011 that if the petitioner was unable to provide credible evidence that the consignment parcel had been delivered to the right addressee, as observed by the fora below no affidavit in support of the person, who delivered the goods, was produced and further a copy of the receipt in which the signatures of the person who received the delivery has also not been produced, it cannot be said to be proper delivery of the documents to the right person. All this fully proves that the Opposite Parties  have failed to prove on record that the  original policy documents were delivered to the complainant. Whereas the complainant alleges that he received the duplicate copy of policy on 27.8.2012 and he was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, so he made request on 31.8.2012 to the Opposite Parties  which was received by the Opposite Parties  on 5.9.2012 as admitted by he Opposite Parties  in their written version, for the cancellation of the policy and to refund the premium amount i.e. well within free look cancellation period of 15 days from the date of receipt of duplicate copy of policy, but the Opposite Parties  refused to accept the request of the complainant.   All this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. As such the complainant is entitled to get the refund of the amount of premium from the Opposite Parties as pr the terms and conditions of the policy.
11. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed with costs and the Opposite Parties  are  directed to refund the amount of premium Rs. 12,649.14 Ps. subject to deduction of proportionate risk premium for the period of cover and other costs pertaining to stamp duty and medical examination of the proposer, if any, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of orders,  failing which complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite Parties  are  also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 01-04-2015.                                          (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                President

hrg                                                 (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)    (Anoop Sharma)

              Member                          Member