Haryana

Karnal

319/2012

Puneet Bhatia S/o Chander Parkash Bhatia - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

D.K. Sharma

16 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.319 of 2012

                                                              Date of instt. 05.07.2012

                                                               Date of decision:16.2.2017

 

Puneet Bhatia son of Shri Chander Parkash Bhatia, resident of house no.567, old Housing Board Colony, Karnal.

 

                                                                              ……..Complainant.

                                      Versus.

1. The Manager, Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Ltd., Sector-12, Karnal.

2. The Manager/Authorized Signatory, Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Ltd., Registered office Unit-601, 6^th Floor, Raheja Tanium, off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063.

 

                                                                                    ………… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:      Shri D.K.Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Rahaul Bali Advocate for opposite parties.

 

 ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he obtained life insurance policy bearing no.500-1394518 dated 16.07.2008 from representative of opposite parties, namely Sneha Sukhija. The term of the policy was 15 years and half early premium was Rs.10,000/-. He deposited the premiums regularly with the opposite party no.1. However, he had not deposited premium within stipulated period, therefore, his policy lapsed. In order to revive the policy, he sent a cheque bearing no.811061 dated 11.10.2010 for an amount of Rs.20000/- from his account maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sector-12 Karnal alongwith other documents required for revival of the insurance policy. The cheque was got enchased by the opposite parties. However, the opposite parties sent letter dated 8.1.2011 alongwith cheque of Rs.20,000/-. It was submitted in the said letter that the policy cannot be revived due to mismatch of the signature of policy holder. The policy was not revived by the opposite parties intentionally with ulterior motive to grab the amount of premiums Rs.30,000/- deposited by him with opposite party no.1. His signatures were similar on the documents on the basis of which the policy was issued, the cheque issued by him for depositing the amount and the application moved for revival of the policy, therefore, there could be no question of mismatching of his signatures. He visited the opposite parties number of times and requested for depositing the premium of insurance policy, but the opposite parties paid no heed to his requests and refused to revive the policy. Ultimately, he got served a legal notice dated 29.02.2012 upon the opposite party no.2 for revival of the policy, but the same also did not yield any result. Such acts and conduct on the part of the opposite parties, amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which caused him mental pain, agony and harassment.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands; that the complaint is false and malafide and that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant has not deposited the premiums within stipulated period, therefore, the policy had lapsed. To revive the policy, the complainant handed over a cheque of Rs.20,000/- alongwith documents. The cheque was duly honoured, but the complainant was sent letter dated 8.1.2011 that the policy could not be revived due to mis-match of his signature in declaration of good health, which is an important document received from the policy holder, whose policy remained in lapse stage for more than six months. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit EX.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Snehalata Nago Manager Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 and Ex.O3 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                Admittedly, the complainant had obtained life insurance policy from opposite party no.1 on 16.7.2008 and deposited half yearly premium of Rs.10,000/-. He did not deposit the premiums within stipulated period, therefore, his policy had lapsed. In order to revive the policy, he sent a cheque of Rs.20,000/- to opposite party no.1 alongwith documents required for revival of the policy. The opposite party no.1 got the cheque encashed. Lateron, the opposite party no.1 sent letter dated 8.1.2011 alongwith cheque of Rs.20,000/- submitting that the policy could not be revived due to mismatch of signature of the policy holder. Thus, the main question which arises for consideration is whether the signatures of the complainant on the application for revival of the policy did not match with his signatures on the documents on the basis of which the policy was issued.

7.                The burden was upon the opposite parties to prove that the signatures of the complainant on the application for revival of the policy did not match with his signatures on the other documents on the basis of which the policy was issued. However, the opposite parties have not produced any documentary evidence in order to substantiate their plea. Only the affidavit of Manager Legal Ex.O1 has been filed, but the same cannot be taken to be the gospel truth, as the same does not find support from any quarter. No opinion of any Handwriting Expert has been produced to prove that the signatures on the application for revival did not match with the signatures of the complainant on the other documents. Even the official of the opposite parties, who gave such opinion that the signatures on the application for revival of the policy did not match with specimen signatures on other documents, has not come forward to file affidavit in this regard. Mere allegation of the opposite parties cannot take the place of proof. Under such circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that the opposite parties have altogether failed to prove that signatures of the complainant on the application for revival did not tally with his other signatures available in the record of the opposite parties. Consequently, rejecting the application of the complainant for revival of the policy and refund of the amount of Rs.20,000/- deposited by him for that purpose, amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

8.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to revive the policy of the complainant after obtaining the amount of premiums due. We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 17.2.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member