DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Piar Chand s/o Sh. Dhani Ram r/o H.No.2513, Sector 38 (West), DMC Colony, Chandigarh.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

1.                 Bharti Axa Life Insurance, through its Managing Director, SCO 28-29-30, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh

2.                 M/s Strategic Marketing Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, SCO No.60-61, Top Floor, Sector 17, Chandigarh

3.                 Harpal Singh c/o M/s Strategic Marketing Pvt. Ltd, SCO No.60-61, Top Floor, Sector 17, Chandigarh [Deleted vide order dated 2.5.2012).

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  None for the complainant

                        Sh. R.S. Dhull, Counsel for OP No.1.

                        Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. proxy for Sh. Mohit Sareen, Counsel for OP No.2.

                        OP No.3 deleted.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Piar Chand has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs :-

i)                   to pay Rs.60,000/- alongwith interest

ii)                to pay Rs.1.00 lacs as compensation

iii)              to pay Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that the representative of the opposite parties approached him and allured him to invest money in a scheme floated by the opposite parties that if the complainant paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- in the 1^st year he would be given extra benefits upon availing the scheme.  The representative further told the complainant that he would be given Rs.2.50 lacs health card for his family members by the opposite parties and he would also get 130% additional interest upon Rs.60,000/- after 5 years.  He was further told that if he paid Rs.60,000/- as premium in the 1^st year and paid Rs.10,000/- p.a. as premium for the rest of the years the opposite party would invest the amount i.e. Rs.40,000/- in fund value and would pay the same to the complainant @ 12% to 15% each year. 

                   According to the complainant, he expressed his inability to pay Rs.60,000/- in one go, upon which the representative of the opposite party told him to pay Rs.60,000/- in installments.  Accordingly, the complainant deposited Rs.60,000/- in 4 quarterly installments of Rs.15,000/- (C-1 to C-4) each as premium for the policy which was for five years. 

                   According to the complainant, when he went to deposit the next premium amount of Rs.10,000/- for the second year of the policy, he was told that the policy would lapse if he did not pay the amount of Rs.15,000/- quarterly for 15 years.  The complainant was shocked to know that the policy was issued to him fraudulently for 15 years as against the proposed 5 years.  He issued a legal notice dated 12.10.2010 to the opposite parties but to no avail. 

                   In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           Opposite party No.1 in its written reply though admitted that opposite party No.2 is its agent but it has been denied that the complainant was allured by it or its representative.  It has been pleaded that the premium of the policy opted by the complainant was Rs.60,000/- per annum. It has further been pleaded that the complainant opted for the policy after understanding its terms and conditions and submitted the proposal form. It has been averred that the policy term was 15 years and not 5 years.  According to the opposite party, the policy bond was received by the complainant on 2.11.2009.  If the terms and conditions were not in consonance with the proposal form submitted by him, he had option to cancel the policy within 15 days of receipt of the policy.  But the complainant did not opt for this option.  It has been denied that any fraud or forgery has been committed at the instance of the opposite party. 

                    According to the opposite party, it received a letter dated 12.8.2010 from the complainant regarding cancellation of the policy or to make arrangement to decrease the premium from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.10,000/- quarterly which was duly replied on 7.9.2010.  However, it has been averred that the request could not have been accepted as the same was beyond the free look period. 

                   Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

4.                           Opposite party No.2 in its separate written reply pleaded that the complainant approached opposite party No.3 for getting an insurance policy.  It has been denied that the complainant was assured that he would be provided Rs.2.50 lacs health card for his family members or that he would get 130% additional interest upon Rs.60,000/- after 5 years or that policy period was 5 years.  It has been averred that the policy under reference was for 15 years and the complainant opted for the payment of premium in quarterly installments as per his convenience.  It has further been pleaded that the complainant chose the benefit of the policy on his own free will and choice.  The receipt of legal notice has been denied.  It has also been denied that the policy under reference was issued to the complainant by fraud and misrepresentation. 

                   Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

5.                           On 2.5.2012, counsel for the complainant gave a statement that he does not want to seek any relief from opposite party No.3 and prayed that its name may be struck off.  Accordingly, name of opposite party No.3 was struck off from the array of opposite parties.

6.                           On 15.11.2012 when the case was fixed for arguments none appeared on behalf of the complainant.  Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of this complaint on merits under Rule 4 (8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Act even in the absence of the complainant. 

7.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties and have gone through the documents on record.

8.                           Annexure C-5/R-1 is the copy of the proposal form for life insurance.  From a bare perusal of the same it is apparent that the complainant had opted for a policy which was for 15 years and he had agreed to pay premium of Rs.60,000/- per annum in 4 quarterly installments of Rs.15,000/- each.  This proposal form bears the signatures of the complainant. The complainant has not pleaded that this document was not read over and explained to him.  This proposal form is also accompanied by another document under the heading illustration of benefits for ‘Bharti AXA Life AspireLife’. This document clearly shows that the complainant had to pay Rs.60,000/- per annum for 15 years.  This document also bears the signatures of the complainant meaning thereby that this document was also read over and explained to the complainant.  Thus, the complainant was made aware of the premium schedule i.e. he had to pay Rs.60,000/- annually for a period of 15 years. 

9.                           It is evident that the policy, issued to the complainant, was in consonance with the proposal form filled by him.  According to the opposite parties, the policy was received by the complainant on 2.11.2009.  The complainant had the option to cancel the policy within the 15 days (free look) period.  However, the complainant did not opt to cancel the policy and continued with the same.  It is not the case of the complainant that the policy was not received by him on 2.11.2009.  Hence the bald assertions of the complainant, that the policy issued to him was not in consonance with the terms and conditions explained to him and further that he was required to pay Rs.60,000/- only for the first year, and Rs.10,000/- thereafter for five years, is contrary to the written proposal made by him, for issuance of the policy, so the same cannot be accepted.  Hence we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the present complaint deserves dismissal.

10.                       In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed, however, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

11.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

30.11.2012.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER