BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.473 of 2015

Date of Instt. 03.11.2015

Date of Decision: 02.05.2017

Sh. Surinder Singh son of Sh. Baldev Singh, age 60 years, resident of Village Cheema Kalan, Jalandhar

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Managing Director & CEO, Sh. Mandeep Ghosh, Unit-601 & Sixth Floor, Raheja Titanium, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E) MUMBAI – 400063.

2. Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Jalandhar Branch, SCO-33, Multani Tower, Second Floor, Puda Complex, Opposite D.C. Office, Jalandhar- 144001.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. Ashish Bhandari, Adv Counsel for complainant.

Sh. KS Minhas, Adv Counsel for OP No.1 and 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. The instant complaint filed by complainant, wherein alleged that the OPs had approached the complainant for purchasing of Bharti AXA Secure Income Plans. On the representation and inducement of OPs the complainant was lured for purchasing the aforesaid policies. The officials of the OPs represented that at the option of the complainant, he was free to pay premium for one year, two years for any other period up to seven years period. It was not binding upon him to pay premium for seven years continuously.

2. The complainant was issued two Bharti AXA Life Secure Plans from the OPs vide policies Nos. 501-1762589 and 501-1762597 on the payment of the premium of Rs.48,958.69 each, which were for the terms of 7 years. On receiving the aforesaid policies, the complainant after going to the clauses accompanying the policies changed his opinion because it contained terms and conditions which were contrary to the representation/promise made by the OPs through their agents at the time of the purchase of said policies.

3. That the complainant after going through the terms and conditions of the said policies changed his opinion wanted to surrender both the policies and on 19.05.2014 approached the OP No.2 and gave an application for the cancellation of the policies and to refund the money. The application was duly received by the OP No.2 being the branch office of the OP No.1 and assured that the amount will be duly refunded as soon as possible and requested the complainant to give blank cancelled cheque so that the refund money can directly be transferred into the account of the complainant. The application for the refund of the aforesaid policies was given by the complainant to the OPs within 15 days from the receipt of the policies as per the clause 12 i.e. Free Look Period. The complainant was entitled to get the policies cancelled within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the policies if the terms were not acceptable. The complainant also moved one complaint before the Ludhiana Office of the OP No.1 on 03.09.2014, which was duly received but no efforts was made to refund the policies amount, not only this correspondence was done through e-mail but the OPs failed to send the refund for the reasons best know to them and then ultimately, the complainant got served a legal notice dated 28.07.2015 through his counsel upon the OPs to refund the policies payment of Rs.48,958.69 each along with 18% interest per annum from the date of acknowledgment and to pay the damages for deficient and negligent service, non cooperation and the harassment and mental tension caused to the complainant. The OPs have indulged in unfair trade practices and has provided highly deficient and negligent service to the complainant and as such the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the amount of the aforesaid policies i.e. Rs.48,958.69 each along with 18% interest from the date of acknowledgment and to pay Rs.1 lakh as damages and compensation for providing deficient and negligent service.

4. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties and accordingly both the OPs filed their joint reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and abuse of the process of Consumer Forum and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed and further alleged that the complainant has failed to make the said person as a party in the complaint due to reason best known. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of mis joinder of parties and further submitted that on the basis of the proposal forms, the subject policies were issued to the complainant. Thus, the allegations herein are false, frivolous and untenable and a concocted story. Even as per settled principle of law that if any person signs any document, it is presumed that he/she has signed the same after reading and understanding it properly. Further, it is a settled principle of law that a principal can be held vicariously liable for the acts of an agent, only where such act was within the scope of the agent's authority and further averred that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and even there is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of replying OP and further stated that as per the terms of the policy contract if the policy is not suitable, the policy holder may get his/her policy cancelled by returning the policy and policy documents within 15 days (Free Look Period) from the day the policy holder received the policy. The insurance company will return the premium paid to the complainant after making certain deductions specified therein. In the present case, the policy was dispatched to the complainant and the same was duly received by him as admitted. The policy holder after the receipt of the subject policies and policy documents did not approach OPs and got his subject policies cancelled within Free Look Period implying that the policy holder duly accepted the subject policies and its documents with its terms and conditions. Thus, the complaint is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has not produced any record which suggests that he had approached the company with any such request. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased two policies but the remaining allegations are categorically denied and as such the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

5. In order to prove his claim, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents i.e. Ex. C-1 Insurance Policy-cum-Premium Receipt, Ex.C-2 Insurance Policy-cum-Premium Receipt, Ex.C-3 Legal Notice, Ex.C-4 Postal Receipt, Ex.C-5 Complaint written to company by the complainant, Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7 Postal Receipts, Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-12 are the correspondence made by the complainant to the company and closed the evidence.

6. To the contrary, counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith some documents i.e. Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2 Proposal Forms, Ex.OP-3 and Ex.OP-4 Copy of Benefits Illustrations, Ex.OP-5 Copy of Policy Terms and Conditions, Ex.OP-6 Copy of Communication and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective party and also gone through the case file very minutely.

8. After hearing the arguments and from the scrutiny of the case file, it has become clear that the issue in dispute is only whether the complainant has approached the OPs for cancellation of both the policy within a stipulated period i.e. 15 days (Free Look Period) as per the terms and conditions attached with the policies.

9. No doubt as per the version of the complainant as elaborated in the complaint as well as in his own affidavit Ex.CA, he categorically alleged that he purchased two policies from the OP and paid a premium of Rs.48,958.69 for each policy but when he received the policies along with terms and conditions, after going through the terms and conditions, the same were not suited to the complainant and as such he made the request to get cancel both the policies and accordingly he submitted an application dated 19.05.2014, copy of the same is proved on file Ex.C12, for cancellation of the policies and further made reliance upon an another document Ex.C-6, whereby the complainant tried to prove that he received the policies on 19.05.2014 and on the same day he applied for cancellation.

10. To the contrary, the simple plea taken by the OP is that the complainant has not approached to the OP for cancellation of both the policy within a stipulated period i.e. 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy because as per insurance policy, the date of issue is 10.02.2014. So, it means the policies were prepared on the same date and handed over to the complainant but he applied for cancellation of the said policy on 19.05.2014 means after three months but as per terms and conditions of the policy, complainant is only entitled to get the policy cancelled within a Free Look Period i.e. 15 days. So neither of the party cannot go beyond the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and therefore the complainant is not entitled for refund of the premium, so deposited for both the policies.

11. We have sympathetically considered the respective version of both the party and find that as per insurance policy Ex.C1 there is a term and condition at Clause No.12 under the heading Free Look Period and according to that term and condition, the insurance policy can be cancelled within Free Look Period i.e. 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy but the complainant very cunningly does not mention the date on which he received the insurance policies rather in a vague pleading in Para No.3 stated that on receiving of the aforesaid policies, he applied for cancellation of the policy but we failed to understand what is the factor which restrained the complainant from mentioning the date of receipt of the policy in the complaint. So this factor itself shows that the complainant had received the insurance policy on the same day when it was prepared by the OP i.e. on 10.02.2014 and complainant applied for the cancellation of said policy as per letter Ex.C-12 on 19.05.2014 means after more than three months which is clear that he has not applied within a Free Look Period. So, for the concern of document referred by the complainant i.e. Ex.C6 which is not helpful to the complaint because no doubt in that document the status date is mentioned 19.05.2014 but it is no where mentioned in said document Ex.C-6 that the complainant has received the policy on 19.05.2014. So, from any angle the complainant could not able to establish that he has applied for cancellation of policy within Free Look Period i.e. 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy. If so then the plea taken by the OP which is based upon the terms and conditions of the policy is acceptable and accordingly we reached to conclusion that there is no solid substances in the submission made by the learned counsel for the complainant. Therefore the complaint of the complainant is dismissed. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

12. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

02.05.2017 Member President