BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.376 of 2014

Date of Instt. 27.10.2014

Date of Decision :16.10.2015

1. Sohan Singh;

2. Amarjit Singh son of Sohan Singh;

3. Sonia wife of Amarjit Singh;

All resident of Mohalla Satnampura, Near Kothi Raulan, Phagwara District Kapurthala.

..........Complainants Versus

1. Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, SCO 33, Multani Tower, 2nd Floor, Puda Complex, Jalandhar.

2. Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Limited through its Zonal Manager, SCO 208-209, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

.........Opposite parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Vaneed Bali Adv., counsel for complainants.

Sh.Vikas Sood Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainants have filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant No.1 retired as principal and has been surviving his life with the help of his pension as the complainant No.1 has not any other source of income. The complainants are having good reputation in the society. The complainants are consumer of the opposite parties. The authorized agents of the opposite parties approached the complainants and induced the complainants to invest their hard earned money in the policies of opposite parties. The agents of the opposite parties represented to the complainants that the complainants will got lucrative returns on his investment if the complainants invest their money in accordance with them. Complainants trapped into the net of the agents of the opposite parties and purchased the policies of the opposite parties by investing Rs.4,00,000/- in the policy of the opposite parties. Firstly the complainant No.1 purchased one policy of the opposite parties and paid a sum of Rs.98,000/- vide cheque No.159289 dated 18.4.2013 drawn on HDFC Bank favouring Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Limited. The agents of the opposite parties assured the complainant No.1 that the policy alongwith terms and conditions will be sent to the complainant No.1 within 15 days from the purchase of policy. Thereafter the agents of the opposite parties again approached the complainant on 29.4.2013 and induced the complainants to purchase more policies of the opposite parties, in the name of his family members. The agents of the opposite parties assured to provide profit and other benefits to the complainants on the purchase of the said policies. Due to the assurance given by the agent of the opposite parties the complainants purchased two more insurance policies in the name of his son and daughter in law i.e complainants No.1 & 2(complainants No.2 & 3). The complainants again gave two demand draft bearing Nos.000070 and 000071 both dated 29.4.2013 for sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each drawn on HDFC Bank and demand draft No.002344 dated 24.1.2013 for Rs.1,00,000/- which were also issued in favouring Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Limited. All the above noted cheques and drafts were duly encashed by the opposite parties. Even after the encashment of the above noted cheques no insurance policies were issued by the opposite parties to the complainant, even till now. At the time of getting investment the authorized agents of the opposite parties assured the complainants that the policies pertaining to the above noted investment would be sent to the complainant within 15-20 days from today, but no insurance policies were sent by the opposite parties. In September 2013 the complainants approached the customer care department of the opposite parties who informed the complainants regarding policies numbers as 500-9454447, 500-9814384 and 500-9846550. The complainants got registered his protest regarding the non receiving of insurance policies with the customer care department of the opposite parties and requested the customer care department of the opposite parties for the cancellation of insurance policies. The official of the customer care department of the opposite parties suggested the complainant to contact local branch office i.e at opposite party No.1. On 26.9.2013 the complainants submitted a letter to the official of opposite party No.1, which was duly received by the opposite party No.1, whereby the complainants requested the opposite parties for the cancellation of the insurance policies, due to non receiving of the insurance policies of the opposite parties and requested the officials of the opposite party No.1 to return the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- invested by the complainants on the assurance of the agents of the opposite parties. On 10.10.2013 the complainants received a reply dated 27.9.2013 from opposite parties, whereby the opposite parties sought two week time from the complainants for disposal of the grievance of the complainant. The complainant again received a letter dated 25.11.2013 issued by the opposite parties whereby the opposite parties informed the complainants that in order to resolve the grievance of the complainants, the opposite parties appointed a representative namely Mr.Tajinder Dhiman in this regard. In the first week of the December 2013 the representative of the opposite parties namely Tajinder Dhiman and Aman Syal visited the house of the complainants and discussed the matter in detail. During discussion the representatives of the opposite parties informed the complainant that the policies of the complainants have been lying with one Mr.Rahul Mahajan one of the official of the opposite parties No.1 & 2 and they also admitted the fact that the policies pertaining to the investment made by the complainants were not supplied to the complainants by the opposite parties. The officials of the opposite parties while admitting the fault on the part of the opposite parties, in order to refund the partly invested amount of the complainants issued a cheque of Rs.97,767.15/- in favour of the complainant No.1 and assured the complainants that balance invested amount of Rs.3,00,000/- will be refunded back to the complainants alongwith bonus. The complainant has also sent letter in this regard to the opposite parties. The complainant No.1 was shocked to receive a letter dated 6.1.2014 from the opposite parties to the effect that the complainants made a request for the cancellation of policy on 26.9.2013 which is beyond the free look period. On such like averments, the complainants have prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund him the amount of Rs.3 Lacs. They have also claimed compensation.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, want of cause of action, territorial jurisdiction, not approaching the Forum with clean hands etc. They further pleaded that the complainant approached the opposite parties for the insurance policies. The complainant accepted and agreed with the terms and conditions and on the request of the complainants the proposal was accepted and the insurance policies were issued. When the proposal was given and the same has been accepted, both the parties are bound by its terms and conditions. In the present case the complainant has not asked for the cancellation of these policies within the free look period, hence the request was not accepted and declined. Intimation was also given to the complainant qua this fact. As a gesture of goodwill the company cancelled one policy and refunded the premium amount. However, in other two policies, the policy bond was delivered hence policies were not cancelled. Insurance is a contract where parties are bound by it, any benefit is payable as per policy terms and conditions. Free look provisions are binding on both the parties. The complainant and other persons received the insurance policies and retained it which clearly shows that they were satisfied with the policies when it were issued. It is also specifically stated that the policies are issued at different point of time and misspelling allegations are denied. It is an afterthought story. The policies were dispatched and received. No request for the cancellation was ever received within the free look period. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of their complaint, learned counsel for the complainants has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OA alongwith copies of documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O12 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. Counsel for the complainants contended that agents of the opposite parties induced the complainants and they purchased four policies by investing Rs.4 Lacs with opposite parties. He further contended that complainant No.1 purchased one policy of the opposite parties and paid sum of Rs.98,000/- dated 18.4.2013 drawn on HDFC Bank and thereafter the agents of the opposite parties again approached the complainants on 29.4.2013 and induced them to purchase more policies with the assurance to provide profit and other benefits to them. He further contended that complainants never received any policy documents and as such they applied for cancellation of the policies vide letter dated 26.9.2013 Ex.C1 which was duly received by opposite party insurance company and bears its stamp. He further contended that out of the above said four policies, the opposite party insurance company cancelled one policy and refunded the amount but remaining three policies were not cancelled. He further contended that the opposite parties wrongly refused to cancel the remaining three policies on the ground that request for cancellation was made beyond free look period. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the opposite parties that complainant never applied for cancellation of the policies within free look period but however as a gesture of goodwill the company cancelled one policy and refunded the premium amount. He further contended that remaining policies were delivered and complainant never applied for cancellation of the policy within free look period and as such the same were not cancelled. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by both the parties. Ex.C12 is statement of account in respect of the bank account of the complainant Sohan Singh. There is entry dated 25.4.2013 regarding encashment of cheque No.159289 for Rs.98,000/- in favour of opposite party insurance company. The complainant has also produced certificate Ex.C11 issued by HDFC Bank regarding demand draft No.000070 and 000071 issued in favour of the Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company for Rs.1 Lac each on 29.4.2013 from the saving bank account of the complainant Sohan Singh. At the time of arguments, counsel for the complainants produced copy of demand draft of Rs.1 Lac dated 24th January in favour of opposite party insurance company. So it means that complainants have purchased four policies and had paid Rs.3,98,000/- to the opposite party insurance company vide one cheque for Rs.98,000/- and three drafts worth Rs.1 Lac each. In the written reply, the opposite parties have not specifically pleaded the mode of sending the policies to the complainant. They have simply pleaded that policies were dispatched and received. The opposite parties have produced one acknowledgment sheet dated 23.2.2013 Ex.O11 regarding receipt of one document i.e policy by Sohan Singh complainant. The opposite parties have not produced any other acknowledgment receipt or postal receipt regarding sending or receiving the policy documents by the complainants. Ex.O11 is only regarding one policy. In the column of number of documents "1" is specifically mentioned. In case the complainants have delivered the other three policies to any of the complainants then they must have been in possession of acknowledgment sheet but no such acknowledgments regarding the remaining policies were produced. It is also not case of the opposite parties that policies were dispatched to any of the complainant through post or courier. No postal receipt or courier receipt has been produced to show that remaining three policies were also dispatched to the complainants. However, admittedly the complainant has received amount of one policy which according to the opposite party insurance company as a gesture of goodwill was cancelled and premium amount was refunded. Since it is not proved that the complainants have received the remaining three policies as such question of applying for cancellation of the same within free look period does not arise. The complainant has applied for cancellation of the remaining policies vide letter Ex.C1. He has also requested for cancellation of the remaining policies in the present complaint. Opposite parties have failed to show that policy documents have been delivered to the complainant till date.

7. So in the above circumstances, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties are directed to cancel the remaining three policies of the complainants and pay Rs.3 Lac alongwith Rs.20,000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum after the expiry of said period of one month till the date of payment. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

16.10.2015 Member Member President