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

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

1]   Kuldip Singh Gill S/o Late Sh. Bhag Singh Gill, R/o H.No. 3352, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh.

2]   Harpal Singh Gill S/o Capt. Late V.P.S. Gill, R/o 602, Jal Tarang Apartments, 14A, Pandia Lane, Juhu, Mumbai.

              ---Complainants

Vs.

1]   Bharti AXA Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No. 208-209, 2^nd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh – 160022, through its Branch Manager.

2]   Bharti AXA Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office: Unit 601 & 602, 6^th Floor, Rahja Titanium, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai through its Managing Director/ Regional Manager.

3]   Ravi C/o Opposite Party No.1.

---- Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:   MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA            PRESIDING MEMBER

                        Sh. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU    MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Varun Chawla, Counsel for Complainant.

              Sh. R.S. Dhull, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

Opposite Party No.3 ex-parte.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.          The instant complaint was filed on 20.4.2012. Notice was issued to the Opposite Parties after admission. However, as none had appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3, he was proceeded against ex-parte on 06.07.2012. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 filed reply and evidence on 24.08.2012, and the case was adjourned for evidence, if any, by any of the parties. However, as none appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 on 25.01.2013, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 were also proceeded against ex-parte. Aggrieved by this order, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 preferred Revision Petition No. 08 of 2013 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh. The Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 20.03.2013 dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and directed the parties to appear before the District Forum for further proceedings.

2.          The case of the Complainant No.1 is that in order to get guaranteed benefits of double the amount after 03 years, as stated to him by one Mr. Ravi, Executive/Agent of Opposite Party No.1, he invested Rs.30,000/- in a policy issued in the name of the Complainant No.1 with Complainant No.2 as his nominee. The Complainant has stated that a blank proposal form was got signed from him on the pretext that the formalities for issuance of policy would be collected, but the agent never returned back. When the Agent did not return the Complainant tried to contact him telephonically to know the status of his policy. He also approached Opposite Party No.1 several times to know the status of his case and also to know when the policy would be delivered to him. In the meantime, the 2^nd premium became due and on the assurance made by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant made payment of the 2^nd premium of Rs.30,000/- also. In the meantime the 3^rd premium also became due. On receipt of the renewal premium letter the Complainant No.1 again approached the Opposite Parties to hand over the policy bond first so as to enable him to deposit the third premium. The policy bond was again not delivered to him. Thereafter, the Complainant No.1 tried to contact the Opposite Parties on their Toll Free No., upon which he was informed by one Ms. Rejina that his policy bond was in the custody of Opposite Party No.1 and he should approach Opposite Party No.1 for the same.

          When the Complainant No.1 approached Opposite Party No.1 vide letter dated 18.11.2010, Opposite Party No.1 instead of delivering the policy bond made an endorsement on the letter that they are not in possession of the policy bond. The Complainant No.1 again wrote a letter dated 19.11.2010 to the Opposite Parties through speed post apprising them that he had not yet received the policy documents. He was surprised to receive a letter dated 16.11.2010 wherein the Opposite Parties informed him that the policy had been sent to him, but was returned to the Head Office undelivered. He was asked to submit an indemnity bond on a stamp paper of Rs.200/- along with a request letter for the issuance of policy. The Complainant No.1 realized that the Opposite Parties were trying to cover up their misdeeds and omissions as the policy had not been delivered to him. The Complainant No.1 also received another letter dated 18.11.2010 wherein he was made aware that his complaint was being addressed to the Executive Grievance Redressal Cell. However, there was no positive out come of the same. As the Complainant was now fed up with the exercise, he approached the Opposite Parties to refund the amount of Rs.60,000/- paid as premium along with interest and compensation for harassment (letter dated 17.11.2011). The Opposite Parties instead of sending refund along with interest sent the original policy bond to the Complainant through courier on 06.12.2011. On perusal of the policy bond, the Complainant realized that the policy had been issued contrary to the instructions of the Complainant No.1.  It has in fact been issued in the name of Complainant No.2 without there being any instructions to that effect. It has been given in the complaint that in fact, the Complainant No.2 had never proposed the policy.

          The Complainant No.1 also approached the Ombudsman for redressal of the grievance vide letter dated 16.01.2012 but his grievance was not redressed even there. The Complainants have thus approached this Forum alleging grave deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties. The Complainants have prayed for refund of Rs.60,000/- along with interest, compensation and costs of litigation. 

3.          As stated above, Opposite Party No.3 was proceeded against ex-parte on 06.07.2012 and Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 were proceeded ex-parte on 25.01.2013 after filing reply and evidence.

4.          Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in their joint reply have maintained that the complaint is false, malicious and incorrect. The Complainants have leveled allegations of wrong fulfillment of the details and false allurement. In fact, there is no negligence or deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties. As required by the IRDA (Protection of Policy Holders’ Interest) Regulations 2002, the policy terms and conditions specifically provides for a free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy. The refund of the amount paid as premium cannot be sought as the request for the same is made beyond the free look period of 15 days. Opposite Parties have given the factual position which is briefly explained as under: -

i.   Opposite Parties have received a copy of proposal from for issuance of policy “Future Safe” in the name of Respondent No.2 proposed by Respondent No.1. Rs.30,000/- was received as first premium which was to be paid annually for subsequent years till maturity of the policy (Proposal Form Annexure OP-1).

ii.  On receipt of duly signed proposal form along with the initial premium, policy dated 28.1.2008 was issued to the Complainant. (Annexure OP-2). The said policy bond was sent to the Complainant through speed post bearing No. EMI16265650IN (receipt unavailable).

iii. The answering Opposite Party received first communication from the Complainant regarding non receipt of policy dated 30.10.2010 which was replied vide letter dated 8.11.2010. Vide another letter dated 16.11.2010 the Complainant was asked for completion of certain formalities for issuance of duplicate policy bond.  (Annexure OP-3 and OP-4).

iv.  The Complainant did not file any grievance while paying the premiums.

v.   All allegations by the Complainant about mis-selling are against the Opposite Party No.3.

vi.  Duplicate policy bond was issued to the Complainant vide letter dated 12.01.2011 (Annexure OP-5).

          On merits, Opposite Parties have admitted the issuance of policy and receipt of cheque of Rs.30,000/- towards the first premium. Proposal form is already on record at Annexure OP-1. It has been stated that the policy bond was sent by the head office directly to the Complainant and hence, if undelivered, it will go back to the head office and not to the regional office. The policy bonds are not handed over to the agents or regional office. Since original policy bond had already been sent, duplicate bond could only be issued as per the required process. Opposite Parties have also maintained that no guidelines of Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority have been violated. Hence, denying all other allegations, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

          The reply of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 is duly verified, but is not supported by any affidavit.

5.          We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have perused the record along with the written arguments filed on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

6.          The case of the Complainant is with regard to mis-selling of policy by the Opposite Party No.3 who is Agent of the Opposite Parties and subsequently, non-deliverance of the policy bond. Till the time of demand of 3^rd premium the Complainants had also paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards initial and second premium. The instant complaint was filed when the 3^rd premium became due and the policy bond was still not received. The Opposite Parties in reply have maintained that the policy bond was sent to the Complainant through speed post bearing EMI16265650IN. As it remained undelivered, it had gone back to the head office. Accordingly, Opposite Parties had requested the Complainant to sign the relevant documents for issuance of duplicate policy bond, as required under law. Aggrieved by the same, the Complainants have filed the instant complaint demanding refund of the amount paid, along with interest and compensation.

7.          There is no evidence to prove that the policy bond sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant has been received by him. However, the Complainant No.1 has received the duplicate policy bond through courier on 06.12.2011 (Annexure C-13). Not satisfied with the same, he has requested the Opposite Parties for refund of his money along with interest. The Opposite Parties have refused to make the payment as according to them, the request is beyond the free look period of fifteen days. Opposite Parties have placed reliance on settled law to prove that presumption of truth is attached to documents signed by a person even if they are blank (Grasim Industries Ltd. & Anr. Versus Agarwal Steel decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 20.10.09 in CA 5994 of 2004). Also, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in LIC Versus M. Gowri, 1994 (3) CPR 398(NC), the Agent of the company acts as agent of the insured and not of the insurer at the time of filling the proposal form. Opposite Parties have also maintained that if there is a dispute regarding signatures obtained on blank documents then the proper recourse would be a Civil Court and not a Consumer Forum. Also, Opposite Parties have maintained that the complaint is time barred as the policy inception date is 28.1.2008 while the first communication given to the Opposite Parties regarding non-receipt of policy bond is 30.10.2010. The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in case Avtar Singh Dhillon Versus HDFC Standard Life Insurance, FA 202 of 2012, has held that the issue regarding non-receipt of policy can only be raised at initial stage.

          The Complainant in the present case has already paid two premiums, as was in the case of Avtar Singh Dhillon (supra). But in the instant case, the Complainant has been contacting the Opposite Parties again and again with his grievance of non-receipt of policy. Opposite Parties have admitted that as the bond was undelivered it was kept in the Head Office. Duplicate bond was sent to the Complainant only on 06.12.2011.

          To our mind the free look period available to the insured of 15 days would start from this date and not from the initial date of policy, as per IRDA Guidelines. This is also given in para 6 of the written arguments submitted by the Opposite Parties.  

8.          The Complainant vide letter dated 9.12.2011 (Annexure C-14) has given para-wise comments about his objections to the policy and has also requested for cancellation/ revocation of policy.  Vide letter dated 13.1.2012 (Annexure C-15) he has sent a reminder for revocation of policy. The Complainant has demanded refund of the amount, along with the interest in both the letters. Even the policy bond has been sent back.

9.          The plea of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 about the lapse of time in asking for refund and interest is rebutted by its own admission of non-receipt of policy bond by the Complainants and issuance of duplicate policy bond which has reached the Complainant on 6.12.2011. The Complainant has requested for refund within 15 days which is in strict compliance of IRDA Guidelines and hence, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 should not have denied this privilege to him. 

10.        We accordingly, allow the present complaint as we find definite merit in the grievance of the Complainant about non-receipt of policy bond, even though he has paid two premiums. We accordingly give directions to the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to refund the amount of Rs.60,000/- received as premiums from the Complainant after deduction of statutory charges. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 shall also pay Rs.7,000/- towards costs of litigation. However, the complaint against Opposite Party No.3 is dismissed, as he has only acted as an Agent, while the actual amount has been received by the Insurance Company (Opposite Parties No.1 & 2).

11.        The above said order shall be complied by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 within 45 days from the date of its receipt, failing which Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 will be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the decretal amount; from the date of receipt, till it is paid, besides the costs of litigation.

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

Announced

29^th April, 2013.                                

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU

MEMBER