Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/826/2017

Ashok Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Vishal Goel

25 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/826/2017
Date of Institution	:	27/11/2017
Date of Decision	:	25/09/2018

 

Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Daulat Ram Sharma, R/o H.No.2186, Pipliwala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Limited, Unit 601 & 602, 6^th Floor, Raheja, Titanium, Goregaon (E), Mumbai, through its Authorized Officer.

2.     Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch at SCO 28/30, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Officer.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Vishal Goel, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

Per Surjeet Kaur, Member

1.         The facts of the Consumer Complaint, in brief, are that the Complainant had purchased inasmuch as 05 insurance policies from the Opposite Parties. The details of the Policies are as under: -

Policy No.	Plan	Name of Proposer	Name of Life Assured	Police Issuance Date	Mode
500-3634192	Future Confident 2	Ashok Sharma	Nishant Sharma	21.05.2009	Semi Annual
500-6060148	Aspire Life Plus	Ashok Sharma	Ashok Sharma	30.07.2010	Semi Annual
500-6276736	Aspire Life Plus	Ashok Sharma	Ashok Sharma	16.09.2010	Semi Annual
500-6830656	Aajeevan Anand	Ashok Sharma	Ashok Sharma	10.01.2011	Semi Annual
500-6837941	Aajeevan Anand	Ashok Sharma	Ashok Sharma	12.01.2011	Semi Annual

 

The Complainant has alleged that the Opposite Parties sold him the aforesaid policies, one after another, by misrepresentation. In all, the Complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.1,53,000/- to the Opposite Parties. Eventually, the Complainant moved a Complaint dated 23.05.2011, followed by a representation dated 04.08.2011 to the Opposite Parties claiming refund of his amount paid. However, the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 17.08.2011 wrongly rejected the Complaint. Aggrieved by the said decision, the Complainant filed an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat Chandigarh on 16.09.2011 and in the meanwhile the Opposite Parties refunded an amount of Rs.26,790.45/- to the Complainant vide Cheque dated 01.08.2014. However, the Permanent Lok Adalat, Chandigarh has wrongly rejected the application vide order dated 24.02.2016. Thereafter, the Complainant filed CWP No. 23619 of 2017 before the Hon'ble High Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.10.2017 with a liberty to avail appropriate remedy. Hence, this Complaint. 

2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties in their joint reply, while admitting the basic facts of the case, have pleaded that based on the requirement and information furnished in the proposal forms by the Complainant, he was issued the policies in question. The Complainant retained the policy documents and did not revert within 15 days alleging any discrepancies. For the first time, the request for the cancellation of the policy was made in the year 2011 which was well beyond the free look period, implying that the Complainant had received the policy documents and agreed to whatever information provided to him in the proposal forms and the policy terms & conditions mentioned therein. It has been asserted that Policy Nos.500-3634192, 500-6060148 and 500-6276736 have been terminated as per the terms and conditions of the policy on 20.12.2012, 02.08.2014 and 18.07.2013 respectively. Further, the Opposite Parties have paid the surrender value of Rs.1923.66/- against Policy No.500-3634192 and Rs.26,790.47/- against Policy No.500-6060148 to the Complainant as per the terms and conditions of the respective policies. It has been pleaded that the instant Complaint is barred as grievance if any of the Complainant has already been adjudicated on merits by the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Chandigarh. Once the order has been passed on merit the Complainant can only file a writ petition challenging the order before the Hon'ble High Court. The Complainant vide CWP No. 23619 of 2017 has also misled the Hon'ble High Court by giving false statement. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Controverting the allegations contained in the reply and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the rejoinder.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.
7.         Perusal of the Complainant as well as written statement of the Opposite Parties makes it quite clear that the Complainant invested his hard earned money in the five insurance policies of the Opposite Parties.
8.         The Opposite Parties in Para No.8 of their written statement have categorically given the present status of the Policies in which first three policies have been terminated and next two policies are in lapsed mode.
9.         It has been admitted by the Opposite Parties that an amount of Rs.1923.66/- and Rs.26,790.47/- has been paid to the Complainant towards the surrender value of the first two policies i.e. Policies Nos. 500-3634192 and 500-6060148 respectively. It is important to note that the Opposite Parties nowhere have mentioned about the status of the surrender value of rest three policies which were sold to the Complainant on 16.09.2010, 10.01.2011 and 12.01.2011 respectively.
10.         It has been contended by the Opposite Parties that the policy is governed by the terms & conditions of the policy document and not as per the whims and fancies of the Complainant. Strict interpretation of the terms is necessary for the same and the vague averments of the Complainant cannot be considered. Contrary to the same, the Opposite Parties have mentioned that if any premium due within the first three years Policy years remains unpaid even after the grace period of thirty days from the date of unpaid premium, the benefit of the sum assured in the policy will cease to exist from the date of such unpaid premium termed as lapse date and the policy will lapse. It has also been contended that the policyholder can apply for reinstatement of the lapsed policy within two years from the date of the first unpaid premium and if the policy is not reinstated during the reinstatement period, the policy will stand terminated and the policy fund value as at the expiry of reinstatement period net of surrender charge as on the lapse date shall be payable at the completion of the third policy year.
11.         Perusal of the documents on record makes it crystal clear that the Complainant was informed about the reinstatement period for the first three policies and rest two policies are untouched, till date. Moreover, the surrender value have been paid only in the first two policies and not in the remaining three policies. If we talk about the terms & conditions of the Opposite Parties, they themselves seem to be negligent by keeping mum on the issue of surrender value of remaining three policies and also delaying the payment of surrender value of first two policies when the Complainant showed his disinterest in continuation of the policies with the Opposite Parties in the year 2011. Hence, the act of the Opposite Parties for deliberately delaying the payment of surrender value in first two policies and thereafter ignoring the payment of surrender value in respect of remaining three policies, certainly and definitely amounts to deficiency in service and their indulgence into unfair trade practice, which certainly has caused unprecedented physical and mental harassment to the Complainant and forced him to indulge not only before the Permanent Lok Adalat, but also before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh and finally, in the present unnecessary litigation before this Forum.  
12.         In view of the above, the complaint deserves to be allowed. Accordingly the complaint is partly allowed against Opposite Parties and they are, jointly & severally, directed as under:-

 

1. To pay the surrender value in respect of the remaining three policies to the Complainant as per the terms & conditions governing the said policies;
2. To pay Rs.50,000/-, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant and also for deficiency in providing service and adopting unfair trade practice.

 

3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant.

 

13.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras [ii] & [iii] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart complying with the directions as mentioned in sub-para [i] above.  
14.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
25/09/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”