Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/731/2015

Chitranjan Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co.Ltd. SCO 208-209, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

05 Apr 2016

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	731 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	21.12.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	05.04.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Chitranjan Sharma s/o Late Sh.Ram Rattan Sharma, H.No.3143-44, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh 160022

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.208, 209, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

 

….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Complainant in person.

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Opposite Party exparte.

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant, on the asking of one Ms.Rajni Sharma and Sh.Kashi Ram, to get the drafts against investment in some other insurance companies, invested Rs.16,000/- in Opposite Party Insurance Company.  It is averred that the complainant also paid Rs.75,645/- to the agents and Rs.30,000/- to the get the drafts, as informed, but nothing was paid to him. 

         It is asserted that on the investment of Rs.16,000/- with Opposite Party, a bearing NO.500-9239418, dated 30.11.2012 was issued, but it contained various flaws such as the particulars of the life assured (Yogeshwar Sharma – complainant’s son) as well as of the complainant in respect of their employer, designation, Job and annual income, are totally wrong as well as the signatures of the complainant and his son – Yogeshwar Sharma, are not there, but have been put-on by someone else.  Apart from the above, the complainant also highlighted other flaws in the policies documents as well as proposal form to the Opposite Party Company, while seeking cancellation of the policy and refund of the amount paid thereof, but the same was declined.  Thereafter, the complainant also approached Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh, which too dismissed his complaint.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the above act & conduct of the Opposite Party as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

 

2]       The Opposite Party initially put in appearance through Sh.Akhilesh Vyas, Advocate on 01.02.2016 by filing memo of appearance, but thereafter none has turned up on behalf of the Opposite Party, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 23.2.2016.

   

3]       Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the complainant in person and have also perused the record.

 

5]       The complainant has preferred the present complaint on the score that he was ill-advised by the agents of the OP and coxed, cajoled and convinced to buy the life insurance policy with bi-annual premium amounting to Rs.32,000/-  of which, the first installment of Rs.16,000/- was paid on 20.11.2012 vide cheque drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Chandigarh.  The complainant on receipt of the policy document at his end raised the matter with regard to the discrepancies as well as the mis-selling of the policy in question with the OP.  Finding no positive response, he even approached the office of Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh for seeking redressal of his grievance.  The Hon’ble Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh, while dealing with the matter under the provisions of Arbitration & Conciliation, dismissed the complaint of the complainant, as the conciliation proposal was not acceptable to the complainant, vide order dated 19.12.2014.

 

6]       As per the averments of the complaint, the complainant has alleged issuance of the policy in question by the Opposite Party without adhering to the IRDA Guidelines and as the OP, which was duly served upon, preferred to remain absent after putting in appearance through counsel Sh.Akhilesh Vyas and were proceeded against exparte vide order of this Forum dated 23.2.2016. 

 

7]       As the Opposite Party has preferred to remain exparte and has not contested the claim of the complainant by contesting the claim of the complainant and placing on record the relevant document on the basis of which the policy in question was issued to the complainant, the allegation of the complainant and the averments of the complaint, which are duly supported by sworn affidavit dated 14.12.2015 of the complainant, go unrebutted against the Opposite Party.  Therefore, this Forum is left with no other option but to believe the contentions of the complainant and declare that the policy in question issued to the complainant was not as per his wishes and also contrary to the IRDA Guidelines, as applicable to the policy in question, and issued from time to time.

 

8]       In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua OP. The Opposite party is directed as under:-

 

[a]      To refund the premium amount of Rs.16,000/- to the complainant;

 

[b]      To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service.

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite party; thereafter, it shall be liable to pay the awarded amount along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till it is paid.

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

Announced

05^th April, 2016                                                            

                                                                        Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER