DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST,
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 39/2016
D.No._________________________ Dated: _________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
AJAY JAINS/o LATE SH. RAJAISHWAR DASS JAIN,
R/o H. No. 62, SECTOR-A-6, POCKET-1,
DDA EXPANDABLE HOUSING SCHEME,
OPP.-GOVT. BOYS SR. SEC. SCHOOL,
NARELA, DELHI-110040.… COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. BIRLA SUNLIFE INS. Co. PVT. LTD.,
1st& 2nd FLOOR, B-1/1, COMMUNITY CENTRE,
JANAK PURI, DELHI-110058.
2. Mr. AMIT (CODE No.001459),
BRANCH BIRLA SUNLIFE,
C/o BIRLA SUNLIFE INS. Co. PVT. LTD.
1st& 2nd FLOOR, B-1/1, COMMUNITY CENTRE,
JANAK PURI, DELHI-110058. … OPPOSITE PARTY (ies)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 04.01.2016
Date of decision: 29.05.2020
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therebyallegingthat OP-2 is an agent of RDB Insurance Broking Services Pvt. Ltd. (CIN-US 1109WB2005 PTC 103524) registered broker with OP-1, in the month of February & March-2014 and in an organized way as a
CC No.39/2016 Page 1 of 8
matter of conspiracy misguided and persuaded the complainant to get insured by one policy ofOP-1 and for that OP-2 used various agents/persons using various mobile and landline numbers andon 31.03.2014from his address at Narela, Delhi, the complainant got insured himself from OP-1 by paying premium of Rs.1,50,000/- plus Rs.1,50,000/- total Rs.3,00,000/- and OP-1 issued 2 Life Insurance Policies no. 006475669 & 006475670 dated 31.03.2014. The complainant further alleged that the complainant is working as Medical Officer, E.S.I. Dispensary, Kundli, Distt.-Sonepat in Govt. of Haryana and the complainant is to be retired in June-2017 so cannot sustain these policies after his retirement, is a bachelor having no family responsibility hence does not require any Life Insurance Policy, his GPF deduction of Rs.3,00,000/- per annum hence cannot avail any income tax benefit by the policy, is on a pensionable post and does not have knowledge about insurance sector. The complainant further alleged that agents/persons of OP-1 assured the complainant that OP-1 can pay back the whole premium amount directly to the complainant from the insurance companies of India after a period of 3 months from the date of issue of the policy and OPs want to give the complainant the benefit of life-long pension scheme for his social work for senior citizens as the complainant has done post graduate diploma in Geriatrics and Gerontology and Life member of Geriatric Society of India. The complainant further alleged that to avail the pension scheme the
CC No.39/2016 Page 2 of 8
complainant has to take life insurance policy of the total amount Rs.55,000/- x 10 = Rs.5,50,000/- per annum as one time investment and OPs shall pay back the complainant the whole premium amount and pension will be started after 3 months of the effective date of the policy and when the complainant argued that he does not need any life insurance policy and how a second pension can be provided by the Govt. to him then the agents/persons of OP-2 told that it is new scheme of IRDA for the Life Insurance Policy customers through the department. The complainant further alleged that the complainant believed them considering that OPs are Govt. Employees of IRDA and paid one time annual premium of Rs.2,50,000/- for one policy no.14031481389 of Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and one time premium of Rs.3,00,000/- for the 2 policies no. 006475669 & 006475670 of OP and the whole misguiding incidence the complainant has narrated and mentioned in his complaint letter dated 14.08.2014 to the Chairman, IRDA, Parisrama Bhawan, Hyderabad and the complainant also wrote a copy of his complaint letter dated 14.08.2014 to the Incharge, Cyber Crime Police Station, DGP Office, Hyderabad and the reply received by e-mail from inspector Kampally Srinu dated 13.02.2015 which stated that it is a case of cheating by impersonation which comes under Section 420 IPC and Section 66-D IT Act, 2008. On 14.12.2014, the complainant wrote request letter to Grievance Officer of OP-1, Head
CC No.39/2016 Page 3 of 8
Office at Bombay alongwith the copy of complaint letter for cancellation of 2 policies and refund of premium amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and on 30.12.2014, OP-1 refused to accept the request of the complainant stating that first request has been received after the expiry of free lock period of 15 days. On 21.02.2015, the complainant again wrote the letter to the Chief Grievance officer of OP-1, Head Office at Bombay to reconsider the request and asked about the complete details of the policy agent and on 27.03.2015, OP-1 refused to accept the request giving reference to its previous letter dated 30.12.2014 and did not provide i.e. hided the details of OP-2 and OP-1 & OP-2 have worked together only for the monetary benefits against the true spirit of IRDA and caused the complainant to take unwanted policies no. 006475669 & 0064675670 and caused the complainant unnecessary loss of Rs.3,00,000/- in the month of March-2014. The complainant further alleged that OPs have failed to provide proper service for which the complainant has taken the benefit policy for himself and OPs are liable to pay the same on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint praying for direction to OPs to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- paid as premium by the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. on the premium amount from the date of issue of policy upto the date of actual payment to the complainant as well
CC No.39/2016 Page 4 of 8
as compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causingdamages, mental agony and harassment and has also sought Rs.40,000/- towards cost of litigation.
3. OP-1 has been contesting the complaint and has filed written statement and submitted thatthe complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. OP-1 has denied all the allegations leveled by the complainant. OP-1 further submitted that after receipt of duly filled proposal forms alongwith requisite documents including premium cheques issued 2 policies bearing no. 006475669 & 006475670 to the complainant and the complainant has given the declaration that he has understood the contents of the application and description about the policy and has agreed to abide by the terms & conditions of the policy as well as the risks and consequences of the said policy were understood by the complainant and in case of any discrepancy noted within free look period of 15 days the policy holder has an opportunity to re-consider and surrender the policy and in the present case the complainant never approached OP-1 for the same i.e. for cancelling the policy. OP-1 further submitted that the policy documents were received by the complainant on 17.04.2014 and 15.04.2014 and thus there is no short coming or deficiency in service on its part and as the complainant failed to pay the subsequent premiums the policies lapsed and the company is not liable to pay any
CC No.39/2016 Page 5 of 8
compensation to the complainant and the complaint be dismissed.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder and denied the submissions of the OP-1 and further submitted that OP-1 has taken a misleading plea and he was assured by OPs as well as its agents that only one-time premium was to be paid.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit inevidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copies of letters dated 09.04.2014 & 11.04.2014 issued by OP-1, copies of Welcome Letters issued by OP-1 about policies nos.006475670 & 006475669, copies of policy details, copy of his salary statement for the year 2013-2014, copy of complaint dated 14.08.2014 sent by the complainant to the Incharge, Cyber Crime Police Station, DGP Officer, Hyderabad, the Chairman, IRDA, Parisrama Bhawan, Hyderabad and the Joint Director, IRDA, Parisrama Bhawan, Hyderabad, copy of premium receipt no. 65024586 dated 28.01.2013 of Rs.10,000/- issued by LIC, copy of e-mail dated 13.02.2015 sent by Sh. Kampally Srinu to the complainant, copy of acknowledgement card, copy of complaint dated 14.12.2014 sent by the complainant to the Head Service Assurance/Grievance Officer of OP-1, copy of reply dated 30.12.2014 sent by OP-1 to the complainant, copy of complaint dated 21.02.2015 sent by the complainant to the Chief Grievance Redressal Officer of OP-1, copy of reply dated 27.03.2015 sent by OP-1 to the complainant, copy of 1st premium receipt dated
CC No.39/2016 Page 6 of 8
17.04.2014 vide policy no. 006442769 issued by OP-1 and copies of policy details.
6. On the other hand, Ms. Aakriti Manocha, Deputy Manager (Legal) ofOP-1 filed herevidence by way of an affidavit. OP-1 also filed copy of letter vide Ref. No.BSLI/Legal/MSD/2014/06 dated 20.08.2014 issued by OP-1, copies of insurance policy forms, copy of policy information and copies of letters dated 11.05.2015 vide policy no. 006475669 & 006475670 sent by OP-1 to the complainant regarding your policy is not in force but you can still revive it. OP-1 also filed written arguments.
7. This forum has considered the case of the complainant as well as OP-1 in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the parties.The documents and evidence of the parties shows that the complainant was induced by OPs to purchase the 2 policies of OP-1 whereas the complainant has proved that he has been assured by the agents to purchase the policies on which one time premium was to be paid. Moreover, OP-1 has failed to prove the fact that on which date the policy bonds were delivered to the complainant and thus the defence of free look period of 15 days which has been taken by OP-1 is not attracted to the facts of the present case and OP-1 ought to have refunded the premium amount with interest to the complainant and we are of opinion that failure on the part of OP-1 to refund the premium amount to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade
CC No.39/2016 Page 7 of 8
practice. Thus, OP-1 is held guilty of deficiency in service.
8. Thus, holding guilty for the same, we direct OP-1 as under:
-
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.40,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered.
-
9. The above amount shall be paid by OP-1to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-1 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the dateof payment. If OP-1fails to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant mayapproach this Forum u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 29thday of May, 2020.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.39/2016 Page 8 of 8
UPLOADED BY:SATYENDRA JEET
