DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Anil Thomas s/o John Thomas, R/o H.No 2981, Sec. 47-C, U.T. Chandigarh.

              ---Complainant

Vs

1.   BAJAJ Capital Insurance Broking Ltd., SCO No. 341-342, 1^st Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

2.   AVIVA Life Insurance Co. India Limited, SCO No. 180-182, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, U.T. Chandigarh.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:    SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA              PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA               MEMBER

           SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU        MEMBER

Argued By:    Complainant in person.

Sh. Kamal Kishore, Authorized Agent of Opposite Party No.1.

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Proxy Counsel for

Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.          The Complainant was approached by the representative of Opposite Party No.1 to purchase an insurance plan of Opposite Party No.2 in May 2009. The Complainant accordingly paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- and was issued a Policy No. SCG2594609 dated 16.5.2009, having annual premium of Rs.15,000/- with minimum lock-in-period of three years and assured sum of Rs.3 lacs. The Complainant has stated that he was assured that he would be entitled to withdraw the whole amount after lock-in-period of three years and he would get double of the amount invested with interest @18% per annum. However, when the Complainant visited the office of the Opposite Parties after three years, claiming refund, the amount was refused and the Complainant was offered a sum of Rs.300/- only as refund. He has thus filed the instant complaint with a prayer that the Opposite Parties be directed to refund the amount of Rs.15,000/- along with interest @18% per annum, along with compensation and costs.  

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

3.          The Opposite Party No.1 in its reply has taken the preliminary objection that the Complainant has filed the complaint to cancel the policy, as also to get refund of the premium amount. The answering Opposite Party merely acted as an insurance broker and not as an Insurance company. The policy was issued by the Opposite Party No.2 and the Complainant had himself voluntarily paid the amount. Hence, the contract and dispute if any is between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties No.1 wherein the answering Opposite Party has no role to play, except as an independent Composite Broker for which it has been duly authorized by the Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority (IRDA). Relying on the clauses of brokerage, the Opposite Party No.1 has submitted that it cannot be made to blame for any deficiency in service. 

          On merits, Opposite Party No.1 has denied all the contentions of the Complainant while reiterating that the contract of insurance is between the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2 and hence, the Opposite Party No.1 is not liable to make any payment to the Complainant. Opposite Party No.1 has therefore prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.          Opposite Party No.2 in its reply has taken the preliminary objection that the policy along with the terms and conditions were duly delivered to the Complainant. The letter dated 19.5.2009 provided the Complainant with free look in option which was not exercised by him. As per the terms of contract and as per the IRDA Regulations, Opposite Party No. 2 has issued the policy on the basis of the proposal form submitted by the Complainant. The Complainant has not exercised his right to re-consider or review the policy terms or even cancels the policy within the prescribed period of fifteen days from the receipt of the policy documents and hence cannot now ask for refund of the amount paid. Opposite Party No. 2 has given the factual background of the case and the chronological order of events when the proposal form was signed and the policy was given to the Complainant. The policy had reached the stage of early lapse surrender on 16.5.2012 and the amount payable was Rs.330/-. A cheque for this amount was despatched on 26.05.2012. However this amount has not been accepted by the Complainant. Opposite Party No.2 has also maintained that this policy has now already been auto-foreclosed as per the terms & conditions as no premium was paid after the first premium. 

          On merits, Opposite Party No.2 while admitting the factual position of issuance of policy has stated that the Complainant has never approached the answering Opposite Party prior to three years and has not even availed the free look in period for cancellation of his policy. Denying all other contentions of the Complainant, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of complaint.  

5.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

6.          We have heard the Complainant in person, Authorized Agent of Opposite Party No.1 and learned proxy counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 and have perused the record, along with written arguments filed on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2.

7.          It is evident that the Complainant has a misconceived notion that the amount paid by him to Opposite Party No. 2 with the help of Opposite Party No.1 would fetch him a handsome earning of 18% interest and would double in three years. The Opposite Party No. 2 has denied giving any such promise to the Complainant. It has been submitted that complete policy documents were supplied to the Complainant along with covering letter and he had the option to cancel the policy within the free look in period, in case he was not satisfied with the same. The Complainant has chosen not to opt for this option, but has only approached the Opposite Parties three years after the first payment was made. No payments have been made in the intervening period by the Complainant. Opposite Party No.1 has categorically stated that it has only acted as broker between the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 2 hence it has no role to pay in the cancellation of the policy or making any payment to the Complainant.  

8.          It is very unfortunate situation where an educated person has not carefully looked at the terms and conditions and has believed that his money would double in three years. There is no such clause to this effect in the policy placed on record by the Complainant himself. In these set of circumstances, we cannot hold the Opposite Parties liable to make payment against the claim made by the Complainant. Opposite Party No.2 has stated that the Cheque of Rs.330/- was sent to the Complainant. The Complainant has obviously not accepted this amount.

9.          In the absence of the Complainant making use of the free look in period, we do not think that we can hold the Opposite Party No.2 liable to pay anything more to the Complainant than the amount already offered, which according to it is as per the terms and conditions of the policy, as the policy has already reached the stage of early lapsed surrender.      The complaint against Opposite Party No.2 is thus accordingly dismissed.

10.        The complaint qua Opposite Party No.1 also deserves to be dismissed, as the amount of Rs.15,000/- has not been paid to it and it has only acted as a broker between the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2. Therefore, not finding any merit against Opposite Party No.1, the same is also dismissed qua it.

11.        However, the Complainant is still entitled to the amount of Rs.330/- sent to him by the Opposite Party No.2. This cheque be again re-issued to him by the Opposite Party No.2 within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

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

Announced

28^th February, 2013.                                                 

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

“Dutt”