Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/178/2015

Amrik Singh Katwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti AXA Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Hitesh Pandit

03 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	178 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	20.3.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	3.3.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Amrik Singh Katwal Advocate, resident of # 52, Shaheed-E-Azam Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ropar, Tehsil & Distt. Ropar.

....Complainant

                                                    Versus

 

1. Bharti AXA Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.208-209, Sector 34-A,    

    Chandigarh through its Manager.

 

2. Bharti AXA Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Unit 601 & 602, 6^th floor, Raheja Titaniun,     Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063, Regn. No. 130 through Managing Director.

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:                                                                     PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR                             PRESIDING MEMBER

SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA           MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj, Adv.
For OP s	:	Sh. Akhilesh Vyas, Adv

 

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the in the month of July, 2010, one of the officials of the OPs contacted the complainant for securing life insurance policy of OPs. by depositing Rs.20,000/- annually for 3 years and thereafter the OPs. will refund Rs.92,000/- to the complainant. As per assurance given by the said official, the complainant purchased insurance policy bearing No.500-5949572 by paying first premium amount. At the time of paying of first premium, the said official told that the original policy documents will be sent to him within a week, but till now he has not received any such documents. The complainant paid premiums regularly till its last payment in January, 2013, in total he has paid Rs.60,000/- to the OPs. and he was expecting refund of Rs.92,000/- as assured by the of OPs. It is stated that in the last receipt the next date of payment of installment was mentioned as July, 2013. On enquiry about the same, he was told by OP. No.1 to ignore that, but he was shocked, when he received letter in the month of June, 2013 for payment of another premium of Rs.10,000/-. Complainant contacted the Customer Care of OPs. but no satisfactory reply was given, rather  it was told to the complainant that he should purchase another policy, if he wants refund of his invested amount. Thereafter, on 16.7.2013, complainant received letter from the OPs. vide which it was conveyed that they will sort out the matter, but till now nothing has been done. A legal notice was also issued to the OPs. but no reply was  received. Alleging  deficiency on the  part of the Opposite Parties the instant complaint has been filed.

2.           Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite  Parties, seeking their version of the case.
3.           Opposite Parties in their reply stated that the Opposite Parties never assured the complainant that after payment of premium for three years the complainant will get Rs.92,000/- as alleged nor there is any such provision under the Insurance Act to pay any lumpsum amount irrespective of the premium amount or its terms.  The Insurance Policy was issued to the complainant purely on the basis of the proposal form submitted by the complainant which contained all the terms and conditions of the policy to be purchased and the premium payable by him. The complainant was well aware that he is to pay the half yearly payment of Rs.10,000/- for 20 years.  But admittedly after payment of premium upto the year 2013, the complainant stopped making payment of the premium thereby the policy obtained stood lapsed. It is denied that the original policy document was not issued to the complainant. It has been stated that the complainant was rightly issued letter for subsequent premiums. The Opposite Parties duly replied the legal notice of the complainant in spite of that he approached this Forum. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.          The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.

 

 

5.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.

 

7.           We have perused the Bharti AXA Life Common Proposal Form placed at Annexure A of the paper book at page 34, which has been duly signed by the complainant. On perusal we find that sum assured is for Rs.2 lacs. The product name is Bright Star Plus. Premium payment term is mentioned as 20. Policy benefit period as 20.  We also find that the insurance policies were issued by the OPs as per proposal submitted by the complainant.  The allegation of the complainant regarding non receipt of the policy papers does not appear to be correct as he had paid six half yearly installments of Rs.10,000/- each upto 10.1.2013. If the complainant had any grievance about the non-receipt of the policy document than he should have agitated before the payment of the second installment. But the complainant has not agitated till payment of 6^th installment.

 

8.          Moreover, the complainant had levelled allegations of cheating by the OPs in Para 8 of the complaint.  This Forum has got no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon  such complicated question as the same require leading of voluminous oral as well as documentary evidence, which exercise cannot be undertaken by this Forum, as the proceedings before it are summary in nature. In this regard reliance is placed on Mahavir Prasad Sharma Vs. M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company and ors decided by the Hon’ble National Commission on 20.8.2015. Thus, only the Civil Court could decide such disputed and complex questions of fact and law. Hence the complainant is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.

9.          For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

10.           However, the complainant shall be at liberty, to approach the civil court for redressal of his grievance, under the provisions of law.

11.          The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

3.3.2016                   

 (P.L. AHUJA)

Sd/-/-RESIDENT

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER