Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/454/2018

Anit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Axa Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

V.K Singh

23 Sep 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/454/2018
Date of Institution	:	17/09/2018
Date of Decision	:	23/09/2020

 

Anit Kumar s/o Sh. Ravinder Kumar r/o House No.2682, Sector 52, Chandigarh (UT)

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Chief Executive Officer, Bharti AXA Life Insurance, #61-62, Kalpataru Synergy, Opp. Grand Hyatt, Vakola, Santacruz (E), Mumbai.
2. The Branch Manager, Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.208-209, 2^nd Floor, A-Block, Sector 34, Chandigarh

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. IPS Mangat, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OPs

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.      The long and short of the allegations are, on 28.9.2007 complainant had taken a unit linked policy bearing No.5000265321 from OP-2 (branch office of OP-1).  The names of the representatives of OP-2 were Arvind Kumar and Shalini and complainant was told by them he was only to pay six half yearly installments of Rs.10,000/- each for three years till 2011 and it would provide life cover of 20 years. Further averments are, complainant was working on regular post of Junior Technician at the University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Panjab University, Chandigarh and regularly managed to pay the installment of Rs.10,000/- half yearly. The complainant completed the six half yearly installments and wanted to reap benefits of the policy. In the year 2017, the complainant wisely thought of updating his residential address and then came to know the status of his policy from OP-2. The complainant was told, policy had terminated due to non-payment of the installments which were to be paid till 2027. The OPs agreed to refund the amount of Rs.53,000/- only to the complainant instead of Rs.60,000/- which was deposited as the premium of installments. Aggrieved with this, the complainant carried the matter to the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh and he was frustrated as the matter was delayed, therefore, he hurriedly signed a settlement on 4.7.2018 though he did not intend to sign it.  The OPs were processing the return of only the principal amount of installments paid i.e. Rs.60,000/- without any interest or compensation which was not acceptable to the complainant. The complainant had also highlighted some errors made by the OPs while taking down the identity proof and filling up the columns. The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and filed the instant consumer complaint praying for refund of Rs.60,000/-; compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-; Rs.50,000/- on account of hardship, mental agony etc. and Rs.40,000/- as litigation charges.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their joint written reply and, inter alia, raised preliminary objections of the consumer complaint being frivolous, vexatious and abuse of the process of the Commission.  It is their case, the Insurance Ombudsman has already decided the matter and a detailed order has been passed. The complainant had the opportunity to challenge said order before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. The case of the OPs is, the policy was terminated as the agreed installments were not paid. Maintained, the terms and conditions of the policy were supplied to the complainant which provided for freelook period to him to either opt continuation of the policy or to cancel it. However, despite that, the complainant opted to continue with the policy on the same terms and conditions. It is also the case, now the complainant had taken a second policy. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.     Replication was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated. The complainant has stated now a new policy of the premium of Rs.22,000/- had been issued whereas the amount deposited was Rs.26,445/-
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After scanning of record, our findings are as under:-
6.     A glance of the record shows, passing reference has been made with regard to the second policy in which the amount deposited was Rs.26,445/- and had premium of Rs.22,000/-. However, we will not discuss and refer this second policy as this has not been called in question in the present consumer complaint and even in the relief clause of the consumer complaint, no prayer had been made with regard to this second policy.  This could only be used on point of fact complainant was hoodwinked by the OPs in terminating the first policy and then giving the second policy.
7.     A perusal of the own pleadings of the complainant states, he had entered into some compromise with the OPs as the matter was pending with the Insurance Ombudsman for complete two years and, therefore, he was frustrated and in depressed state of mind agreed for the settlement. The settlement was signed in a hurry on 4.7.2018. the contents of the settlement (Annexure C-10) are reproduced below :-

         “I, Mr. Anit Kumar, do hereby agree to accept the offer of the insurance company to refund of premium under policy bearing number 500-0265321 which the company has agreed to refund the premium without interest and without deduction of any charges. This we are accepting as full and final settlement of the above complaint during hearing before Hon’ble Ombudsman on 04.07.2018.”

On the basis of the aforesaid contents, the Insurance Ombudsman had closed the case of the complainant by observing “taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, non-acceptance of the agreement by the complainant with the company which was signed on 4.7.2018 is not allowed and the complaint is hereby dismissed” and the case of the complainant was treated as closed.

8.     The complainant himself had called in question his own duly signed settlement (Annexure C-10). The contents of the settlement depicts, the complainant had accepted the offer of the OP insurance company to refund the premium without interest and without deduction of any charges i.e. to say the amount of Rs.60,000/-. This settlement had been duly signed by the complainant himself alongwith representatives of the OPs. It is dated 4.7.2018. The manner in which the signatures were appended on Annexure C-10 by the complainant indicates of the fact of him being an educated person. Even otherwise, he is a Government servant and according to his own assertion, made in the consumer complaint, he is working as Junior Technician at the University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Panjab University, Chandigarh. Therefore, it appears he is well versed with Hindi/English language which is workable to know the contents of the settlement deed.
9.     Not only this, OPs have also asserted, freelook period of 15 days was provided to the complainant to cancel the policy, when it was taken, in case the same was not acceptable to him, but, he still opted to continue on the same terms and conditions supplied. The complainant cannot be cheated everywhere by the OPs or say he will fall prey to the deception every time. 
10.     The ground of attack of the settlement deed signed by the complainant shows he was in hurry, but, he has not disclosed the nature of hurriedness while he had appended his signatures on the settlement deed.  There is no case or averment made, OPs had employed fraud on him while the settlement deed was signed by him. Even the complainant had not resorted to the civil court to seek a declaration of the settlement being void, having been actuated with fraud by the OPs.  Even the award of Insurance Ombudsman vide which the complaint of the complainant was dismissed had not been called in question before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh.
11.     Now we shall refer to Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 vide which admission has been defined as under :-

         “17. Admission defined.— An admission is a statement, oral or documentary or contained in electronic form, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.”

 

12.     Thus applying the said rule of evidence to the facts of the present case, complainant had admitted himself not to claim beyond Rs.60,000/- i.e. compensation and interest and had created an estoppel against himself. In case titled as Bhopal Singh Vs. Chatter Singh, AIR 2000 P&H 34 it was held, it is settled cannon of law that equity follows the law.  Equity would tilt in favour of law and not against violation thereof. To claim equity, the petitioner must explain previous conduct.
13.     Hence, by his own act and conduct, complainant is estopped to claim compensation and interest from the OPs. From the given facts, no case of any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is made out against the OPs. 
14.     In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present consumer complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
15.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

		Sd/-	Sd/-
23/09/2020		[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg		Member	President