THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 337 of 14
Date of Institution : 20.6.2014
Date of Decision : 06.05.2015
Harbhajan Singh son of Avtar Singh aged 41 years, resident of village Dheerekot Post Office, Bhangwan, District Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, 3rd Floor, Balaji Chambers, SCO 3, District shopping Complex, B-Block, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its branch manager
....Opp.party
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainants : Sh.S.S.Jammu,Adv
For the opposite party : Sh. S.K.Vyas,Adv.
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Sh. Harbhajan Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he obtained life Insurance Policy bearing No. 0314372338 from the opposite party by paying premium of Rs. 2,38,937/- on 8.4.2014. According to the complainant he received the poicy document on 12.5.2014 by speed post No. ED 3633028520IN. After going through the terms and conditions of the policy, complainant submitted request for cancellation of the policy on 21.5.2014 i.e. within free look period from the date of receipt of policy documents . But the opposite party has failed to refund the premium of the policy. Thereafter complainant made several visits regarding refund, but to no avail. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,38,937/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complainant submitted request for cancellation of the policy on 30.5.2014 after more than one and half month of receipt of the policy documents. It was submitted that complainant himself proposed for a Non Linked regular premium “Invest Assure” policy after fully understanding the terms and conditions of the policy and submitted a proposal form dated 31.3.2014. He himself opted for a benefit term of 22 years and premium paying term of 12 years and accordingly proposal of the complainant was accepted and a policy bearing No. 0314372338 was issued to the complainant with date of commencement 8.4.2014. The original policy bond containing terms and conditions of the policy was despatched to the complainant vide speed post No. ED363028520IN dated 11.4.2014 and the same was received by the complainant. The complainant has never disputed the terms and conditions of the policy document received by him. The policy documents was delivered to the complainant on 16.4.2014. Since permissible free look period expired on 1.5.2014 and the request was received after the expiry of the permissible free look period of 15 days, the said request received on 30.5.2014, as such the same was rejected and the complainant was informed vide letter dated 9.6.2014. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of policy schedule Ex.C-2, copy of postal receipt dated 12.5.2014 Ex.C-3, copy of letter dated 27.5.2014 Ex.C-4, copy of letter dated 21.5.2014 Ex.C-5, copy of letter dated 21.5.2014 Ex.C-6, ckopy of letter dated 2 3.5.2014 Ex.C-7, copy of letter dated 29.5.2014 Ex.C-8, copy of letter dated 30.5.2014 Ex.C-9.
4. Opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh.Sandeep Gupta Manager Ex.OP1, proposal form Ex.OP2, copy of matriculation certificate Ex.OP3, copy of voter ID card Ex.OP4, copy of benefit illustration Ex.OP5, copy of Aadhar card Ex.OP6, computer print out of track result Ex.OP7, copy of policy particulars Ex.OP8, copy of letter dt.9.6.2014 Ex.OP9.
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 both the parties, it is clear that complainant obtained life insurance policy bearing No. 0314372338 on payment of premium of Rs. 2,38,937/- on 8.4.2014. The complainant alleges that he received the policy documents on 12.5.2014. After going through the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant submitted request for cancellation of the policy on 21.5.2014 vide letter Ex.C-5 within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy, but the opposite party did not cancel the policy nor refund the premium amount to the complainant. The complainant visited the opposite party on 29.5.2014 for the refund of the premium but the staff of the opposite party told the complainant to apply again for cancellation. On their demand the complainant again made application to the opposite party but the opposite party rejected the request of the complainant vide letter dated 23.5.2014 Ex.C-7 regarding cancellation of the policy. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that original policy documents containing terms and conditions of the contract of insurance was sent to the complainant through speed post and delivered on 16.4.2014 at the address given by the complainant. Had the complainant been not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, he could have applied for cancellation of the policy within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy which expired on 1.5.2014. The complainant sent request for cancellation of the policy which was received by the opposite party on 30.5.2014. Resultantly that request of the complainant was rejected by the opposite party vide letter dated 9.6.2014 Ex.OP9. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted tht the opposite party has rightly rejected the request of the complainant for cancellation of the policy vide letter dated 9.6.2014 Ex.OP9. 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. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that no doubt opposite party has sent policy documents to the complainant through speed post No. ED363028520IN on 16.4.2014. But the said documents were received by the complainant on 12.5.2014. In this regard the complainant produced on file a letter from Sohan Singh Postman Ex.C-4 and letter dated 12.5.2014 from said Sohan Singh, Postman Ex.C-3. The complainant also examined Sohan Singh, Postman, who deposed that as per these documents Ex.C-3 and C-4 letters containing policy documents of the complainant sent by the opposite party to the complainant through speed post No. ED363028520IN dated 11.4.2014 was received by him and he went to the address of the complainant on 25.4.2014, 29.4.2014, 6.5.2014 and 10.5.2014 but failed to deliver the abovesaid speed post at the given address. Finally on 12.5.2014 customer took delivery of speed post from post office. This witness Sohan Singh was called for and examined by the opposite party and in his statement this witness deposed that speed post envelope/mail is always computerized and duly sent computerized. Computer system is always maintained by head office. He has seen computer track result of the speed post in question No. ED 3633028520IN Ex.OP7 which is a correct and genuine and it means that delivery of this envelope has been handed over to the complainant. As per this track report Ex.OP7 delivery of this speed post letter containing the policy documents of the complainant was delivered at the address of the complainant at village Bhangwan District Amritsar on 16.4.2014 . We have gone through the entire record and particularly the letter written by Sohan Singh Postman of village Bhangwan Ex.C-3 and C-4 as well as his statement recorded as OP10, no doubt this witness in his letters Ex.C-3 and C-4 has stated that he received the aforesaid POD No. ED 3633028520IN on 16.4.2014. He went to deliver this letter at the address of the complainant on 25.4.2014, then on 29.4.2014, then on 6.5.2014 and then on 10.5.2014 but the complainant did not met him , as such envelope could not be delivered to the complainant and ultimately on 12.5.2014 the complainant received this envelope from his office cum residence in village Bhangwan. These letters Ex.C-3 and C-4 become doubtful as this witness has been examined by the opposite party as Ex.OP10 and this witness Sohan Singh, Postman has deposed that he has been residing in village Bhangwan for the last 35 years. Village Bhangwan is a small village . This witness has also admitted that the record of speed post envelope is always computerized and duly sent through computerized track and the computerized track result is maintained by the head office . This witness has also admitted that he has seen the computerized track of this POD No. ED 3633028520IN Ex.OP7 and this is a genuine and correct document . As per this computerized track result the envelope containing the policy documents of the complainant was delivered at the address of the complainant on 16.4.2014 which fully proves that this envelope was duly delivered at the given address of the complainant on 16.4.2014. This witness Sohan Singh was duty bound to report to its head office/higher authorities about the non delivery of the speed post envelope, so that the same could be entered in the computerized track result Ex.OP7. Further these documents Ex.C-3 and C-4 also become doubtful when this witness Sohan Singh himself has admitted in his statement that he received the envelope in question on 16.4.2014. This witness who is also a postman, has been residing in small village Bhangwan for the last 35 years and he went to deliver the said envelope to the complainant for the first time on 25.4.2014 as per these letters Ex.C-3 and C-4, why this postman did not make any attempt to deliver the envelope and that too sent through speed post, immediately i.e. on the same day 16.4.2014 or at the most on the next day i.e. 17.4.2014. Why he kept the speed post envelope with him for 9 days and even thereafter he kept the speed post envelope with him upto 12.5.2014 i.e. for about one month. This witness who is working as officiating postman in the village has no authority to retain particularly speed post letter/envelope, for about one month. He was rather bound to deliver the said speed post letter/envelope to the addressee within a week or return the same to the higher authorities/head office , so that sanctity of speed post envelope/letter could be maintained which was the duty of this witness Sohan Singh officiating postman. So all this shows that in order to please the co-villager i.e. complainant, this witness has created these letters Ex.C-3 and C-4 which are infact totally against the factual position when the computerized track result of the said speed post envelope Ex.OP7 fully proves that this envelope was delivered at the given address to the addressee on 16.4.2014. So it stands fully proved on record that policy documents were delivered to the addressee i.e. complainant at his given address on 16.4.2014. If he was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, he could have applied for cancellation of the policy within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of policy (16.4.2014) upto 1.5.2014. But the complainant applied for cancellation of the policy for the first time on 21.5.2014 vide letter Ex.C-5 i.e. after the expiry of the free look period of 15 days . Opposite party was,therefore, justified in not accepting the request of the complainant for cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium amount. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove on record any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
9. Resultantly we hold that complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order 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.
6.05.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
