BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 311 of 2015

Date of Institution: 15.5.2015

Date of Decision: 11.7.2016

Mr.Ram Singh S/o Sh. Kundan Singh R/o 27-A, Guru Teg Bahadar Colony, Batala Aged 55 years

Complainant

Versus

Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Ltd., through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principal Officer service through its Branch Office at District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its Branch Manager

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant              : Sh.Deepinder Singh, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party                    : Sh.S.K.Vyas,Advocate

Coram

Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1.       Ram Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  complainant applied for the policy  of opposite party by depositing a sum of Rs. 99500/- on 27.12.2013 and was assigned policy No. 501-1547329. Copy of the policy receipt is attached. The complainant is a consumer as provided under the Act and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this  Forum. Opposite party after receiving the payment of Rs. 99500/- and  issuing the said payment receipt did not issue any policy document to the complainant. The complainant approached the opposite party  several times in this regard and every time, it was intimated that policy has been sent to the complainant. The complainant after a long  communication with the opposite party received the policy document on 25.2.2015 from the opposite party  but to his utter shock the said policy terms and conditions were contrary to the terms promised at the time of receiving the premium. The terms and conditions incorporated in the policy were not suitable to the complainant and he was never made known to him prior to make of the payment. The complainant approached the opposite party on 26.2.2015 and surrendered the said policy within the free look period of 15 days of receipt of copy of the policy and demanded the refund of his amount . But till the filing of the present complaint, the opposite party has not refunded the amount of Rs. 99500/- to the complainant. The cause of action has arisen to the complainant  to file the present complaint when the opposite party failed to refund the deposited amount after the complainant requested for the refund on 26.2.2015 and is continuous till date. The complaint is well within the period of limitation as prescribed  under the act. The complainant has prayed for following reliefs vide instant complaint :-

(i)      Opposite party be directed to refund Rs. 99500/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from date of payment till realization ;

(ii)     Compensation of  Rs. 50000/- be also awarded to the complainant alongwith litigation expenses.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed written reply contesting the claim of the complainant taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that replying opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service qua the complainant. Hence, the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law under the Consumer Protection Act ; that the present complaint has been filed merely on conjectures and surmises. The contents thereof are vexatious and malafide  since it makes false and frivolous allegations against the opposite party and are clearly an afterthought. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Therefore, no case is made out against the opposite party under the provisions of the Act The present complaint is therefore, liable to be dismissed in limine with exemplary costs under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act; that the allegations made in the complaint regarding the alleged mis-selling of the insurance product to the complainant are absolutely wrong and denied. No alleged incentives were promises nor the opposite party encourages giving any incentives as giving  of incentives may tentamount to rebate which is  prohibited u/s 41 of the Insurance Act, 1938. Even otherwise, it is clearly mentioned in the proposal form also. The proposal form was submitted by the insured before obtaining the insurance policy keeping in view his/her requirements and submitted the same to the opposite party alongwith a signed copy of the benefit illustrations  for  the purpose of issuance of the policy. As per request of the complainant, requirements and based on the information provided in the proposal form, the insurance policies were rightly issued as per proposal submitted by the insured persons, therefore, no mis-selling , misrepresentation or fraud was done against the complainant , as alleged. Even otherwise, in case the insured was not satisfied with the insurance product, as per agreed terms and conditions of the policy and IRDA (protection of policy holder’s interest) Regulations 2002, the policy holders had an option to cancel the policy within 15 days of receipt of the policy bond. As per records of the opposite party, original policy was duly dispatched to the complainant well in time as detailed below and as per intimation  received from Blue Dart through whom the courier containing the policy documents was sent has reported that the policy:

Copy of dispatch and delivery proof  issued by the courier  is attached ; that as per terms and conditions of the policy insured persons were liable to pay annual premium  as stated above, but the insured persons failed to pay premium after payment of one installment and as such, as per terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance policy lapsed  and as such nothing is payable to the complainant ; that complaint is not maintainable in the present form  and false and baseless submissions have been made therein and complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. On merits facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.        In his bid to prove the case, Sh.Deepinder Singh,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of premium receipt Ex.C-2, letters to opposite party Ex.C-3 & C-4, copy of first premium receipt E x.C-5, policy details Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

4.        To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Nitin Madaan,Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Snehalata Nago,Sr.Manager (Legal) Ex.OP1, copy of dispatch and delivery proof Ex.OP2, copy of proposal form Ex.OP3, copy of benefit illustration Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.

5.        We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.

6.        Ld.counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that complainant paid the premium amount for purchasing insurance policy from the opposite party on 27.12.2013 . Though receipt regarding the payment of the premium was issued by the opposite party, copy whereof is Ex.C-2, yet the policy was not issued by the opposite party well in time. The complainant approached the opposite party several times  in this regard and every time he was told that policy has been sent to him  and it will reach him in due course. The policy document ultimately was received by the complainant on 25.2.2015 from the opposite party. But,however, the terms and conditions of the policy were not in accordance  with the promised terms and conditions and ,therefore, the complainant approached the opposite party on 26.2.2015 for surrendering the policy in dispute. Since the surrender has been made within free look period of 15 days of the receipt of copy of the policy, therefore, complainant was entitled for the refund of the insurance amount to the tune of Rs. 99500/-. But,however, opposite party refused to  refund the premium amount to the complainant without any reasonable cause. As such opposite party is deficient in service as well as  guilty of indulging in unfair trade practice and mal-practice , which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Not only that complainant is entitled  for refund of premium amount to the tune of Rs. 99500/-, but he is also entitled to compensation as well as litigation expenses to be assessed by this Forum and it is requested that complaint may be allowed accordingly.

7.        But, however, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the insurance policy documents were received by the  complainant personally on 4.1.2014 by Blue Dart courier AWB No. 32756668534. Opposite party has examined Ashok Kumar son of Sital Das, who has made a statement that he was having a blue dart agency and he used to deliver the packets of Blue Dart company. He left this agency in December 2015. Ex.OP2 relates to Amritsar office  but he was not having any record of OP2 with him as the same is of Amritsar office. The evidence rendered  by Ashok Kumar stand fortified from Blue Dart receipt Ex.OP2 & it is proved on record that the policy document was received by the complainant on 4.1.2014 itself. The case of the complainant that the policy document reached him on 25.2.2015 is  not supported by any documentary proof on record. It is none of the case of the complainant that address mentioned in policy document does not correspond to his actual address or on that account the policy document did not reach him well. Simply saying that the policy document did not reach him on 4.1.2014 or that the same was received by him on 25/2/2015 is no explanation for the same when the responsible person from Blue Dart courier has been examined in the court , who has stated that he was working with the Blue Dart uptil the year 2015. The simple fact that he has not brought the record with him, will not obliterate  the value of his statement  because at present he was not working with the Blue Dart Express Ltd and he cannot be supposed to be in possession of the concerned record. In such a situation,  the stand of the complainant that the policy reached him on 25.2.2015, does not appear to be tenable. The complainant could surrender the policy within 15 days of the receipt of the policy documents which was actually received by him on 4.1.2014 and he was within his right to get the policy surrendered within a further period of 15 days therefrom. That not being the case,  the complainant cannot insist for refund of the  premium amount to the tune of Rs. 99500/- under the Insurance Policy in dispute . Since the complainant has not approached the opposite party for surrendering the policy in dispute within free look period, therefore, instant complaint filed by him merits dismissal and the same is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 11.7.2016

/R/