BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.180 of 2015
Date of Instt. 29.04.2015
Date of Decision :30.05.2016
Sudha Kohli wife of Late Mr.Prof.V.K.Kohli R/o 38, Tagore Park, Professors Colony, Jalandhar-144008.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Ltd, Unit No.601 & 602, 6th Floor, Raheja Titanium, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063 through its Managing Director & CEO.
2. Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Ltd., 4th Floor, Shakti Towers, GT Road, BMC Chowk, Jalandhar-144001 through its Manager.
3. Raman Gupta, Manager-Sales Person, Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Ltd., 4th Floor, Shakti Towers, GT Road, BMC Chowk, Jalandhar-144001.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Rajinder Narula Adv., counsel for the complainant.
Sh.KS Minhas Adv., counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2.
OP No.3 exparte.
Order
Bhupinder Singh (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant obtained one insurance policy bearing No.500-9956325 on payment of premium of Rs.1,10,000/- through cheque dated 5.6.2013. Complainant submitted that he obtained this policy as a single premium plan and the complainant was assured by OP No.3 that the complainant will get, after completion of five years, approximately four-five times of the principal amount under the policy alongwith bonus and free gift like gold coin after three months from the initiation of the policy. Complainant received the policy and came to know that the same was not single premium plan rather annual premium frequency plan for 20 years. The complainant was not in such economic position to pay premium annually. OP has issued wrong policy to the complainant. The complainant submitted that he approached OP No.3 sales man of the policy who assured the complainant that he would get the correct policy after some time but OPs neither sent him the single premium plan/policy nor refunded the amount of premium paid by the complainant. In this regard, the complainant also sent letters through email to the OPs and also served legal notice dated 29.12.2014 upon the OPs but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to return the premium amount of the policy alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written reply pleading that in order to obtain the policy, the complainant filled in and signed proposal form dated 10.6.2013 for the purchase of “Secure Saving Plan” in which it has been mentioned that the policy term is for 20 years and the premium payment term is also 20 years. The premium payment frequency is yearly and the amount of premium is Rs1,10,000.21/- for the policy. The OP accepted this proposal form and issued policy bearing No.500-9956235 dated 13.6.2013 on the basis of proposal form dated 10.6.2013 respectively. The policy documents were duly received by the complainant in the year 2013 but he never applied for cancellation of the policy within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents. Complainant did not pay the second premium which was due payable by 13.6.2014 and after a grace period of one month, the policy lapsed. As such, the complainant is not entitled to refund of the premium amount as the OPs have covered the life risk period of the complainant for one year during the subsistence of the policy. OPs No.1 & 2 denied other material averments of the complainant.
3. Notice of this complaint was given to the OP No.3 but nobody has turned-up despite service and as such it was proceeded against exparte.
4. In support of her complaint, learned counsel for the complainants has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.8 and closed evidence.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP6 and closed evidence.
6. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant obtained insurance policy bearing No.500-9956235 on payment of premium of Rs.1,10,000.21/-. Complainant submitted that he obtained this policy as single premium plan and the complainant was assured by OP No.3 that the complainant will get, after completion of five years, approximately four-five times of the principal amount under this policy alongwith bonus and free gift like gold coin after three months from the initiation of the policy. Complainant received the policy and came to know that the same was not single premium plan rather annual premium frequency plan for 20 years. The complainant was not in such economic position to pay premium annually. OP has issued wrong policy to the complainant. The complainant submitted that he approached OP No.3 sales man of the policy who assured the complainant that he would get the correct policy after some time but OPs neither sent him the single premium plan/policy nor refunded the amount of premium paid by the complainant. In this regard, the complainant also sent letters through email to the OPs i.e. letter Ex.C3 and Ex.C4. Complainant also served legal notice dated 29.12.2014 Ex.C6 upon the OPs but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.
8. Whereas the case of the OPs No.1 & 2 is that in order to obtain the policy, the complainant filled in and signed proposal form dated 10.6.2013 ExOP1 respectively for the purchase of “Secure Saving Plan” in which it has been categorically mentioned that the policy term is for 20 years and the premium payment term is also 20 years. The premium payment frequency is yearly and the amount of premium is Rs.1,10,000/- for the policy. The OP accepted this proposal form and issued policy bearing No.500-9956235 dated 13.6.2013 on the basis of proposal forms dated 10.6.2013 respectively. The policy document were duly received by the complainant in the year 2013 but he never applied for cancellation of the policy within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents. Complainant did not pay the second premium which was due payable by 13.6.2014 respectively and after a grace period of one month, the policy lapsed. As such, the complainant is not entitled to refund of the premium amount as the OPs have covered the life risk period of the complainant for one year during the subsistence of the policy. The complainant sent letters Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 for the cancellation of the policy and the complainant was informed that he did not avail the option of cancellation of the policy within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of policy documents, so her policy could not be cancelled. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 & 2 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2 qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that in order to obtain the aforesaid policy, the complainant filled in and signed the proposal form Ex.OP1 in which it has been categorically mentioned that the term of the policy is 20 years and premium payment term is also 20 years. The amount of premium is mentioned and the frequency of payment of premium is also mentioned yearly/annually. On the basis of these proposal forms, the OPs issued policy bearing No.500-9956235 dated 13.6.2013 which were duly received by the complainant. The complainant could not produce any evidence except her own bald statement that the policy obtained by the complainant was single premium policy. The complainant herself admitted that she received the policy within one month from the date of issue. The complainant came to know about the terms and conditions of the policy when he received the policy documents. The complainant had option to get the policy cancelled within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents if she was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy but complainant did not apply for cancellation of the policy within free look period i.e. 15 days from the date of receipt of policy documents. The complainant was duly intimated by the OP that she had free look period for the cancellation of the policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents if she was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy. Thereafter, the complainant did not pay the second premium which was due payable on 13.6.2014 and after a grace period of one month, the aforesaid policy lapsed on 13.7.2014. The complainant never applied for revival/restoration of the policy. The OP has covered the life risk of the complainant under the aforesaid policy for one year. As such, complainant is not entitled to any refund of the premium paid by him to the OP under the policy.
10. Resultantly, we hold that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant. As such, this complaint is without merit and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh
30.05.2016 Member President
