BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.288-14

Date of Institution:23-05-2014

Date of Decision:02-03-2015  

S.Mangal Singh son of Puran Singh, resident of village: Sathiala, Tehsil: Baba Bakala, Amritsar (Punjab)

Complainant

Versus

1. Bharti Axa Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Company Secretary/ Managing Director/ Director/ Authorised Person having its registered office at “Unit No:601, 602, 6^th Floor, Raheja Titanium, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063.
2. Bharti Axa Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Company Secretary/ Managing Director/ Director/ Authorized Person, at “SCO-44, 2^nd Floor, Nagpal Tower, District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar-143001.

Opposite Parties

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

Present: For the Complainant: None for the complainant.

              For the Opposite Parties: Sh.A.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.Mangal Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that Opposite Party No.2 approached the complainant and persuaded him to get an insurance plan from Opposite Parties. The complainant opted to obtain a policy from the Opposite Parties and paid Rs. 31,400/- by cash on 16.12.2013 for application No.7639182 and Rs. 55,816/- by way of cash on 30.12.2013 for application No.782556. Complainant alleges that despite receiving the policy premium from the complainant, the Opposite Parties have failed to deliver the original insurance policy documents to the complainant till date. The complainant made several complaints regarding the non delivery of the original insurance policy and requested to issue the original policy, but despite his repeated requests and demands and number of visits to the office of Opposite Party No.2, they never paid any heed to just and genuine requests of the complainant.  Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to cancel the said insurance policies and to refund the amount of Rs. 87,216/- charged for the policies without any further delay.  Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Parties   appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that as per the record of the Opposite Parties, original policy documents were duly dispatched and  delivered to the complainant at the address mentioned in proposal form through speed post i.e. policy No.501-1623559 was dispatched on 12.1.2014 vide Speed Post AWB No.EA7022536161N and policy No.501-1562781 was dispatched on 26.12.2013 vide Speed Post AW No.EA70123856911N and same were delivered on 21.1.2014 and 6.1.2014 respectively to Mangal Singh himself, but the complainant failed to approach the Opposite Parties for cancellation of the policies within free look period of 15 days and submitted his request for cancellation of the policies on 20.3.2014 which can not be entertained having been made after the free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policies as the same is beyond free look period and as such, the Opposite Parties were unable to process request of the complainant for cancellation of the insurance policies and the complainant was rightly declined the return of the premium amount.   While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Snehlata Nago, Senior Manager Legal Ex.Op1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP17 and affidavit of Sanjiv Kumar, Postman as Ex.OP18.
5.  We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it stands fully proved on record that the complainant obtained two insurance policies from the Opposite Parties vide application/ proposal form No. 7639182 on payment of premium of Rs.  31,400/- on 16.12.2013 and application/ proposal form No. 782556 dated 30.12.2013 on payment of premium of Rs.55,816/-. The complainant submitted that he did not receive the policy documents and he requested the opposite parties for supply of the policy documents, but the Opposite Parties failed to deliver the policy documents. The complainant through this complaint submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite parties is that the complainant in order to obtain the insurance policies filled in and signed the application/ proposal form Ex.OP6 dated 12.12.2013 and application/ proposal form Ex.Op12 dated 30.12.2013 on the basis of which, the policy bonds Ex.OP5 and Ex.OP11 were issued to the complainant.  The original policy documents were duly dispatched and  delivered to the complainant at the address mentioned in proposal form through speed post i.e. policy No.501-1623559 was dispatched on 12.1.2014 vide Speed Post AWB No.EA7022536161N and policy No.501-1562781 was dispatched on 26.12.2013 vide Speed Post AW No.EA70123856911N and same were delivered on 21.1.2014 and 6.1.2014 respectively to Mangal Singh himself.  If the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, he could have get the policy cancelled within free look period of 15 days  from the date of receipt of policy documents, but he did not do so. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties  submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.    
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that in order to obtain the insurance policies, the complainant  filled in and signed the application/ proposal form Ex.OP6 dated 12.12.2013 and application/ proposal form Ex.Op12 dated 30.12.2013 on the basis of which, the policy bonds Ex.OP5 and Ex.OP11 were issued to the complainant.  The original policy documents were duly dispatched and  delivered to the complainant at the address mentioned in proposal form through speed post i.e. policy No.501-1623559 was dispatched on 12.1.2014 vide Speed Post AWB No.EA7022536161N and policy No.501-1562781 was dispatched on 26.12.2013 vide Speed Post AW No.EA70123856911N and same were delivered on 21.1.2014 and 6.1.2014 respectively to Mangal Singh himself. In this regard, the Opposite Parties have examined  through affidavit Sh.Sanjiv Kumar son of Sh.Kewal Krishan, Post Man of same village: Sathiala who has categorically deposed that the aforesaid policies were delivered by him to the complainant i.e. addressee Mangal Singh on 6.1.2014 and 21.1.2014 respectively. The complainant was given opportunity to cross examine this witness, but the complainant did not cross examine this witness despite availing full opportunity as is evident from the statement dated 15.1.2015. So, the statement of this witness Sanjiv Kumar, Post Man remained unrebutted and unassailed. As such, it stands fully proved that both the policy documents were duly delivered to the complainant himself on 6.1.2014 and 21.1.2014 respectively. The complainant never opted for getting the policy documents cancelled, if he was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policies within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of policy documents and filed the present complaint for the first time on 23.5.2014 i.e. after lapse of period of more than 4 months from the date of receipt of policy documents. The Opposite Parties were justified in not cancelling the policy and to refund the amount of premium paid by the complainant to the Opposite Parties.
9. Resultantly the 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.

Dated: 02-03-2015.                                                  

hrg