ORDER                                    Dated: 18.10.2016

Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

1.     The complainant filed this complaint on 11.12.2014 and alleged
that OP issued a policy of life insurance bearing no. 5002520681 for
assured sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs. Complainant received original policy in
January 2009 which was returned back to the agent of the company Sh.
Deepak Bhatia for some corrections  on his request but he did not
return the original policy bond. After persuasion company has issued a
new policy which was different with the old policy regarding terms and
conditions. Complainant could not continue the said policy due to
financial constraints  and  paid six half yearly installments of Rs.
10,000/- each aggregating to Rs. 60,000/- on completion of 3 years
i.e. in 2011 and demanded refund of the money so deposited with
interest but he was asked to wait till the completion of 5 years. On
14.01.2014 OP informed him that his policy issued on 31.12.2008 had
lapsed on 28.12.2012 and two years reinstatement period has also been
completed  as such  the policy stands terminated on 27.12.2013.
Accordingly a cheque of  Rs. 12,706/- dated 08.01.2014 was sent to the
complainant as full and final payment of the said policy. Thereby OP
has failed to refund the return of the principal amount and cheated
the complainant. Hence it is prayed that OP be directed to refund Rs.
60,000/- with interest to the complainant and cost of compensation for
mental harassment and litigation charges also be awarded.

2.     In reply, OP admitted that complainant has taken the policy on
his own will and pleasure and denied rest of the allegation made in
the complaint. It is further stated by the OP that duplicate policy
bond was issued  on his request and as per the declaration made by the
complainant in the  indemnity bond that the policy was misplaced.
The complainant has choosen a Unit linked Insurance Policy which is
based on share market condition and as the share market was down
during the time of payment made the interest of the complainant cannot
be generated rather went in losses. It was further submitted that the
funds of the policy is being utilized as per the guidelines issued by
IRDA.  OP objected that in this case Mr. Rajesh Sharma and Mr. Bhatia
, the insurance agent cannot be impleaded as party on the basis of
proposal form  on which the policy was issued. It is further stated
that allegations of fraud and forgery cannot be decided by this forum
due to lack of jurisdiction. Hence, there is no deficiency in service
on the part of OP and  complaint be dismissed with cost.

3.     The complainant has filed rejoinder to the reply and explained
that the objections filed by OP are baseless. In support of  his
complaint complainant filed his affidavit along with documents copy of
 original receipt as Ex. CW1/1, copy of policy specification Ex.
CW1/2, copy of statement of account Ex. CW1/3, Cheque in original Ex.
CW1/4,  copy of  policy bond as Ex. CW1/5 , original statement of
account  Ex. CW1/6 , legal notice  Ex. CW1/7 , original post office
receipt as  Ex.CW1/8.

4.      In support of reply OP filed affidavit of Sh. Snehlata Nago
(Sr.  Manager Legal ) along with copy of  proposal form  as Ex.OP-1,
copies of complaints dated 21.12.2011  and 29.12.2011 as Ex. OP-2 &
Ex. OP-3 respectively , copies of letters dated 05.01.2012,14.06.2011,
20.02.2014 and 02.06.2014   as Ex. OP-4 to  Ex. OP7 respectively and
copy of legal notice 30.06.2014 Ex. OP8.

5.     Both the parties filed their written arguments.

6.     We have heard the arguments and considered the evidence led by
the parties and their written and oral arguments.  In this case points
to be considered are as under:-

(a)   Whether complainant is a consumer?

(b)  Whether agent Mr Deepak Bhatia is a necessary party?

(c) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

(d) Relief?

7.     OP has admitted in reply that insurance policy was issued to
the complainant. Receipt of Ist premium  dated 31.12.2008 amounting to
Rs. 10,000/- proves that due premium was paid by the complainant to OP
hence complainant is a consumer.

8.     As alleged in the complaint as well as in the affidavit of
complainant agent  Sh. Deepak  Bhatia requested complainant to return
the original policy bond for some correction was denied by the OP. Mr.
Deepak Bhatia  is not made party in this complaint. In our opinion ,
Mr. Deepak is an  agent of the company and is not a  necessary party
but a formal party to prove these allegations.

9.     It is evident from the policy bond Ex. CW1/5 that this policy
was taken for 15 years for an  annual premium of Rs.30,000/- p.a. but
infact the proposal form (Annexure OP-1)  filed by OP1 clarify that
basic product premium was Rs. 20,000/- and total amount paid was Rs.
10,000/-. The first premium receipt dated 31.12.2008  and the proposal
form clarify that basic plan was Bright Star for the assured sum of
Rs. 2,00,000/- for the period of 17 years with semi-annual premium.
Hence, there is a difference between the proposal form and policy bond
issued by the OP. It is suffice to prove deficiency on the part of OP.
OP filed a letter dated 21.12.2011 of the complainant to the OP
(annexure OP2 ) which is suffice to prove the allegation of the
complainant that Mr. Deepak Bhatia took his original bond  to reissue
another policy bond. This letter is submitted earlier to the OP and
subsequently indemnity bond for issuance of duplicate policy was filed
on 28.12.2011. This indemnity bond relates to the return of the
original policy bond to the OP if it is found and is not suffice to
disbelieve the allegations of the complainant. Deposition of the
complainant on affidavit that agent of OP Mr. Deepak requested him to
return the original policy for correction and accordingly he gave
policy to Mr. Deepak is unrebutted.

10.                         Looking to the above facts and
circumstances of the case , we are of the      considered opinion that
deficiency in service on the part of the OP is proved as OP did not
deny the amount of Rs. 60,000/- deposited by the complainant with the
OP , therefore, we direct OP as under:-

1.     To refund the amount of Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant with
interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of payment.

2.     To pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant as
compensation for mental harassment to the complainant.

3.     To pay a sum of Rs. 6000/- to the complainant as cost of litigation.

11.                         The above amount will be payable within a
period of 2 months from the date of order otherwise 18% interest p.a.
will be payable on the compensation as well as litigation charges.

12.                          Copy of the order be made available to
the parties as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced on ……….