Date of Filing: 22.09.2015
Date of Order : 05.11.2018
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.Vijender, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER.
Monday, the 5th day of November, 2018
C.C.No.585 /2015
Between
Mr. Kishore Harsha Samudrala
@ S.Harsha Vardhan,
S/o. Kishore Kumar Samudrala,
Age : 31 years, Occ: Private Job,
R/o. H.No.22-1-565, N.R. Bazar,
Hyderabad – 500024 T.S. ……Complainant
And
- Sri M.R.V. Murali
Senior Area Manager,
Bharti AXA Insurance Company Limited,
Jubilee Hills Branch,
Hyderabad -500034, Telangana State.
- Sri Sandeep Ghosh,
Managing Director / CEO
Bharti AXA Insurance Company Limited,
Registered Office: Unit No.601 & 602 6th Floor,
Raheja Titanium, Off Western Express Highway,
Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400063
Maharashtra. ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainant : M/s. K.K. Samudrala & Associates
Counsel for the Opposite Parties : M/s. E.S. Kumar & P.S. Anjaneyulu
O R D E R
(By Sri. Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
This complaint is preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act of 1986 alleging that Senior Relationship Officer of Opposite Parties by misrepresentation made him to purchase Traditional Policy and that his funds will be transferred from ULIP Policy and that he will credit that the amount this account and close the ULIP Scheme and in consequences of it seeking an order directing the Opposite Parties to cancel the Policy No.501-2775598 and to transfer this amount to policy no.501-2311485 and to pay interest @ 24% p.a., till the payment and costs.
1. The complainant case is he is a Software Engineer and he works 16 hours per day to his Company. One Mr. Hitendera an Insurance Appraiser cum Senior Relationship Officer advised him to join in ULIP Scheme of the Opposite Parties and on the said advise he purchased a Policy from Opposite Party No.2 on 31.03.2010 in Policy No.500-5422505 for an assured amount of Rs.2,40,000/-, with annual premium of Rs.24,000/- having five (5) years duration.
2. In the month of August-2014 one Mr. Manoj an Insurance Appraiser cum Senior Relationship Officer of Opposite Party No.2 Company advised to transfer the funds from ULIP Scheme and explained the benefits. Accordingly complainant purchased policy bearing No.5012311485 on 14.08.2014 and assured amount of the said policy is Rs.3,96,000/- and annul premium payable is Rs.35,966/-.
3. In the month of January-2015 another Insurance Appraiser cum Senior Relationship Officer Mr. Anjaneyulu of Opposite Party No.2 Company approached the complainant and misrepresented that the complainant’s traditional policy purchased through Mr. Manoj on 14.08.2014 was not activated. Hence, advised to join in another traditional policy for which funds will be transferred from ULIP Policy earlier made by Mr. Manoj and stating so Mr.Anjaneyulu obtained signatures of the complainant on some papers and promised to credit the amount into the complainant’s account and close ULIP Scheme made by Mr. Manoj and transfer the entire amount including under policy bearing No.501-2311485 dated 14.08.2014, to the complainant’s personal account. In the month of April 2015, when Mr. Anjaneyulu approached the complainant he was in peak hours of his work and signed on the papers and issued a cancellation cheque under the bonafide belief that Mr. Anjaneyulu will get the policy no.501-2775598 dated 21.01.2015 for annual premium of Rs.57,500/- and sum assured amount will be Rs.6,33,096/-.
4. In the second week of April-2015 complainant has got checked his personal S.B. Account and noticed that amount was not transferred to him as promised by Mr. Anjaneyulu. Then immediately the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 and explained the sufferings caused by Mr.Anjaneyulu as he was working under Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.1 assured to solve the issue in a weeks’ time but thereafter Opposite Party No.1 also dodged the issue and finally on 27.05.2015 expressed his helplessness and advised the complainant to lodge a complaint where ever he desires. The complainant suspects that Mr.Anjaneyulu and Opposite Party No.1 are hand-in-glow for illegal benefit to Opposite Party No.2 Company. Hence, he got issued a legal notice on 29.05.2015 to the Opposite Parties. Opposite Party No.1 having received the said notice did not initiate any action. Then, the complainant has lodged a complaint on 21.08.2015 before the IRDA but there was no action. Hence, the present complaint.
5. A common written version is filed for both the Opposite Parties denying the material allegations in the complaint. The stand of the Opposite Parties is the Opposite Party No.2 is the Insurance Company registered under the Companies Act with registered office in Mumbai. The complainant is an existing customer and had a ULIP Policy bearing No.500-5422505 issued in the year 2010. The complainant had made partial withdrawals in the said policy in two times i.e., 08.08.2014 and 20.01.2015. On the basis of requests received from the complainant the Company made payouts and communicated to him by letters dated 13.08.2014 and 30.01.2015. After that, the Company received a payout request for surrender of the policy on 29.06.2015 and accordingly the company paid the surrender value through NEFT and communicated to him by letter dated 10.07.2015. The complainant having satisfied with the services of the company once again approached for issuance of policies in the month of August 2014 and again in January 2015. On the basis of complainant’s requirement proposal form was furnished with benefit illustrations and other documents. The company neither encourages any discrepancies to be crept in nor it intend to issue any insurance contract on incorrect information of public documents. The Policy of the Company always is to send policy document along with copies of supporting documents to the policy holder to enable him to go through the details. Accordingly, policy documents and copies of the Proposal Forms and signed benefit illustrations of the Policy were forwarded to the complainant with a covering letter mentioning that in case he has not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the Policy he can withdraw / return the policy within “freelook period” of 15 days and they were received by the complainant on 25.08.2014 and 28.01.2015 respectively. Thereafter, the complainant did not approach the Opposite Parties alleging any discrepancy in the Proposal Form and did not express his grievance about the policy terms and conditions during the “free look period”. Hence, it amounts that the complainant agreed to the contents of the Proposal Form policy terms and conditions as in order.
6. Opposite Party No.2 Company has put in place a mechanism viz., Pre insurance and Verification Call prior to contacting for the policy with an object policyholder has to understood the key features of the policy without any ambiguity. The company effected Pre insurance Verification Call for both the policies and had given a call to the complainant and at that time he did not raise any concern and did not allege that there was a mis-selling of the policy.
7. The complainant for the first time came up with e-mail on 06.05.2015 i.e., beyond “free look period” of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents alleging mis-selling of the policy. The said e-mail of complaint was replied on 15.05.2015 and arranged a sales meet for complainant with Mr.S.Anjaneyulu.
8. As per the discussions the Opposite Party had with complainant it is understood that the complainant has used both the Policies for TAX Benefit purpose. The complainant was informed that, it has received request for cancellation of the policy after lapse of “free look period” and that there was no mis-sell of the policy.
9. The complainant’s father who is an advocate had sent legal notice to Opposite Party No.1 and CEO of Opposite Party No.2. On receipt of the said notice an authorized representative of Opposite Parties tried to contact the complainant to understand his grievance to arrive at an amicable solution. But, the complainant avoided and threatened the Opposite Parties that, he will go to media if the policy is not canceled. No fraudulent activity was involved in selling the policy to the complainant who on his own free will and choice opted to take the policies. Hence, the Opposite Parties are not responsible or liable for any of the lapse committed by the complainant.
10. Complainant has not raised any consumer dispute therefore he cannot maintain the present complaint. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. There is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
11. In the enquiry stage complainant has got filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the allegations made in the complaint. He has also got exhibited five (5) documents. For the Opposite Parties evidence affidavit of one Sri Sachin Kalra stated to be Associate Vice President (Legal) of Opposite Party No.2 Company is filed and through him nine (9) documents are exhibited. Both the parties to the complaint have filed written submissions supplemented with the oral arguments.
12. On a consideration of material available on the record the following points have emerged for consideration.
- Whether the complainant was made to purchase Policy No.501-2775598 by Mr. Anjaneyulu an Insurance Appraiser cum Senior Relationship Officer of the Opposite Party No.2 by misrepresentation and inducement?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for a direction from this Forum to Opposite Party No.2?
- To what relief ?
- Point No.1: There is no dispute that the complainant is an existing customer Opposite Party No.1 as he obtained ULIP Policy in the year 2010 and thereafter he obtained Policy on 08.08.2014 and 20.01.2015 by partial withdrawals of the funds from policy obtained in the year 2010. His version is Mr. Annaneyulu stated to be Insurance Appraiser cum Senior Relationship Officer of Opposite Party No.2 mis represented and made him to purchase the subject policies. It is not in dispute that the complainant submitted Proposal Form with his signatures for the purchase of subject policies and basing on the information furnished by him in the Proposal Form the policies were issued by Opposite Party No.2. It is a fact that, the Policy documents were sent to the complainant along with the copies of the Proposal Form signed by him and illustrations explaining the benefits under subject Policy in the covering letter sent along with the policy documents and copies of proposal form there is a clear mention that, in case the policy holder is not satisfied he can withdraw from the policy giving reasons within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the Policy. This stand of the Opposite Party in the written version as well as evidence affidavit filed on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 is neither denied nor disputed by the complainant in his evidence affidavit. The complainant says when Mr. Anjaneyulu approached him in the month of January-2015 and informed to that the Policy purchased by him earlier through Mr. Manoj was not activated and stating so secured signatures on some papers to join him in another traditional policy of the Company and at that time he was in peak hours of work and signed the papers and delivered a cancellation check to Mr.Anjaneyulu thinking that an amount will be transferred to his account by this, the complainant is trying to impress that he signed on the forms placed before him by Mr.Anjaneyulu without going through benefits of it’s contents. It is pertinent to bear in mind that the complainant is not an illiterate and infact he is a Software Engineer working with a reputed company. Hence, it is difficult to believe this version of him.
14. As already said complainant has not denied the version of Opposite Parties that policy document and copies of the Proposal Forms were received by the complainant with a covering letter mentioning that if the Policy holder is not satisfied with the terms and conditions mentioned in the Policy document he can withdraw from it within a freelook period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of the policy documents. It is evident from the record that the subject policy documents, copies of the Proposal Form containing the covering letter were received by the complainant on 25.08.2014 and 28.01.2015. Thereafter he did not approach the Opposite Parties either a personal or by way of correspondence expressing any grievance with the terms and conditions mentioned in the Policy documents. For the first time he had sent e-mail on 06.05.2015 i.e., more than three months after receipt of the Policy documents, alleging mis selling of the policy. What made the complainant await for three months for sending email on 06.05.2015 is not stated.
15. The complainant by way of asking the opposite parties to cancel the subject policy and transfer the amount and to the earlier policy dated 14.08.2014 is asking for refund of the premium paid. The Hon’ble National Commission held that: “the premium by an insured to cover the risk for given period and insured covers the risk for the period of which the premium has been paid. It is not the case of the complainant that the risk was not covered for the period for which the premium was given”. If, after that the policy lapsed under no provision of terms of the policy or law could any forum direct for refund of any premium for the simple reason that risks stood cover for the period of which premium had been paid. To the case on hand the said observation of Hon’ble National Commission squarely applies, hence, it is not open for the complainant to ask cancellation of the policy and thereby seek refund of the premium paid for the period for which risk has been covered by the Opposite Parties. Hence, the point is answered against the complainant.
- Point No.2: Since the complainant is not entitled to seek cancellation of the subject policies as a sequence to it he is not entitled for any of the directions prayed for.
- Point No.3: In the result, the complaint is dismissed and no order as to costs.
Typed by Typist, corrected and pronounced by us on this the 5th day of November, 2018.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
PW1 DW1
Mr. Kishore Harsha Mr. Sachin Kalra
Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Exhibit: A-1 is copy of Policy No.501-2775598 dt.21.01.2015 made by Mr.Anjaneyulu.
Exhibit: A-2 is copy of Policy No.501-2311485 dt.14.08.2014 made by Mr.Manoj.
Exhibit: A-3 is copy of Legal Notice dt.29.05.2015.
Exhibit: A-4 is copy of Postal department letter NO.EN0572443761N proof service along with letter dated 25.06.2015.
Exhibit: A-5 is copy of complaint lodged with IRDA of India dt.21.08.2015.
Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite parties
Exhibit: B-1 is copy of Payment Request Form along with cancel Cheque.
Exhibit: B-2 is copy of Payment Request Form along with cancel Cheque.
Exhibit: B-3 is copy of letter addressed by Opposite Party dt.13.08.2014.
Exhibit: B-4 is copy of letter addressed by Opposite Party dt.30.01.2015.
Exhibit: B-5 is copy of Payment Request Form along with cancel Cheque.
Exhibit: B-6 is copy of letter addressed by Opposite Party dt.10.07.2015.
Exhibit: A-7 is copy of Proposal Form dt.08.08.2014.
Exhibit: A-8 is copy of Proposal Form dt.19.01.2015.
Exhibit: A-9 is copy of e-mail sent to complainant dt.15.05.2015
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Kps
