| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No. 454 of 2014 Date of Institution: 22-8-2014 Date of Decision: 22-07-2015 Shiv Raman Rishi son of Sh.Radhe Sham, resident of 60 Kangra Colony, Amritsar. Complainant Versus - Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Limited, Unit 601 & 602, 6th Floor, Rathaja Titanium, Office Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063, through its Manager/ Director.
- Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.44, Nagpal Tower, 2nd Floor, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, through its Manager/ Director.
Opposite Party Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date. Present: For the Complainant: Sh. S.K.Saini, Advocate For the Opposite Parties: Sh.S.K.Vyas, Advocate Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. - Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Shiv Raman Rishi, under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that on the allurement of one official namely Paramjit Singh Lamba of the Opposite Party, that if the complainant invests Rs.56,000/- in Reliance Policy, he will get its refund value of Rs.113492/-. It was also stated by said agent of the Opposite Party that the said amount of Rs.113492/- will be refunded to the complainant, if the complainant purchases another policy of Bharti AXA of Rs.22000/- per yearly and same will be refunded within a few days. The complainant issued a cheque of Rs.22,000/- bearing No. 148480 dated 22.8.2013 of HDFC Bank, Amritsar as per the conversation with one agent namely Dhiraj of the Opposite Party and lateron, the Opposite Parties sent the policy Bharti AXA Life Aajeevan Sampatti bearing No. 501-1195566 to the complainant. Thereafter, Paramjit Singh Lamba agent of the Opposite Party told the complainant that a cheque bearing No. 307893 dated 22.8.2013 of AXIS Bank will be given within 30 to 45 days after verification by Mr.Chohan from Chennai. Thereafter, the complainant made requests to the Opposite Parties, but no response has been given by the Opposite Parties regarding the refund of amount of Rs.22,000/- involved in the policy in question. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund Rs.22,000/- involved in the policy in question. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
- On notice, Opposite Parties appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the allegations made out in the present complaint regarding the alleged mis-selling of the insurance product to the complainant are absolutely wrong and denied. The insurance policy was issued to the complainant based upon the proposal form submitted by the insured before obtaining the insurance policy keeping in view his requirements and submitted the same to the Opposite Parties alongwith a signed copy of the benefit illustrations for purpose of issuance of the policy. Even otherwise, in case the insured was not satisfied with the insurance product, as per agreed terms and conditions of the policy and IRDA, the policy holders had an option to cancel the policy within 15 days of receipt of the policy bond. As per the records of the Opposite Parties , the original policy bond was duly dispatched to the complainant through reputed courier Blue Dart vide AWB No.44074907483 dated 2.9.2013 which was duly delivered at the complainant’s address on 2.9.2013 as per information received from the said courier agency and admittedly received by the complainant, but the complainant failed to approach the Opposite Party for cancellation of the policy within the ‘Free Look Period of 15 days and as such, the Opposite Parties were unable to process request of the insured for cancellation of the insurance policy and the complainant was rightly declined the return of the premium amount. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the insured persons were liable to pay annual premium as mentioned in the policy document itself, but the complainant failed to pay the premium after payment of one installment and as such as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance policy was lapsed and as such nothing is payable to the complainant. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
- Opposite Party tendered into evidence documents Ex.OP1,2/1 to ExOP1,2/13 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
- 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.
- 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 in order to obtain the insurance policy from Opposite Parties, filled in and signed the proposal form Ex.C6/ Ex.Op1,2/1. Resultantly, the Opposite Parties issued insurance policy dated 26.8.2013 which was dispatached to the complainant on 29.8.2013 and was delivered to the complainant on 2.9.2013. The complainant in his complaint has himself admitted that he received the policy dated 26.8.2013 from the Opposite Parties. If the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, he could have availed the option of cancellation of the policy within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of policy document, but the complainant never did so. The complainant wrote letter dated 10.1.2014 for the first time i.e. after a lapse of period of 4 months from the date of receipt of policy document on 2.9.2013, for cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium amount. The Opposite Parties were justified in not accepting the request of the complainant. The plea of the complainant that one Paramjit Singh Lamba had told the complainant that the complainant had invested Rs.56,000/- in some Reliance Policy and its refund value is Rs.1,13,492/- and that the complainant can get refund of his policy amount Rs.1,13,492/- if the complainant would gets another policy of Opposite Parties of Rs.22,000/- yearly, then the aforesaid amount alongwith premium of this policy would also be refunded to the complainant within few days and the complainant has purchased the present policy from the Opposite Parties on the allurement of said Paramjit Singh Lamba, is not tenable because the complainant could not produce any Reliance Policy of Rs.56,000/- whose refund value is alleged Rs.1,13,492/- nor the complainant made said Paramjit Singh Lamba, Dheeraj or Chohan as party to the present complaint nor the complainant could prove any relation of said Paramjit Singh Lamba, Dheeraj or Chohan with Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties have issued the insurance policy to the complainant on the basis of proposal form Ex.C6 produced by the complainant himself, which is filled in and signed by the complainant after admitting its contents as correct. There is presumption under section 114 of the Evidence Act that if a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted. Same view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in case Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Agarwal Steel (2010) 1 SCC 83 in Civil Appeal No. 5994 of 004 decided on 20.10.2009.
- In view of the above discussion, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove on record any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
- Resultantly the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. 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: 22-07-2015. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member pan> President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member | |
