Haryana

Kaithal

399/20

Amit Sudershan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Birla Sun Life Insu. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

16 Aug 2023

ORDER

                            

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.399/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 17.11.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:16.08.2023.

Amit Sudershan, Advocate son of Sh. Sudershan Chaudhary, r/o House No.345, Sector-20, HUDA, Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Manager, near Dr. A.K.Mittal Hospital, Dhand Road, Kaithal.
2. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., through its M.D./Chairman, Registered Office at 6^th Floor, Vaman Centre, Mahkwaha Road.

….OPs.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.   

                   SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Complainant in person.   

                Sh. Manoj Ichhpilani, Advocate for the OPs.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Amit Sudershan-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that on 22.08.2005, the complainant purchased a Money Back Policy namely “FLEXI CASH FLOW-2003” for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- bearing No.00465935 from the OPs for a term of 20 years and Rs.1422/- was to be paid by the complainant as quarterly premium which was being deposited by the complainant regularly.  It is alleged that on 29.08.2020 after expiry of 3^rd five years, the complainant applied the money back amount of Rs.20,000/- through respondent No.1 in the shape of written/printed application but no amount was transferred into the account of complainant and remaining 40% amount i.e. Rs.40,000/- alongwith bonus etc. are to be paid after getting the maturity i.e. after 22.08.2025.  On 29.08.2020 the complainant made a complaint for non-refunding of Rs.20,000/- as money back but the OPs did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.          Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that on 29.08.2020 after the expiry of 3^rd five years, he applied for the money back amount of Rs.20,000/- by submitting a written application.  However, it is pertinent to mention here that the OPs received a request for the pay out of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant in September, 2020 and the same was adequately replied by the OPs on 30.09.2020 whereby the complainant was asked to submit the documents.  However, the said documents were never submitted but the complainant being an Advocate adopted clever tactics just to harass and humiliate the OPs by filing the present complaint.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R6 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             The complainant has argued that on 22.08.2005, he purchased a Money Back Policy namely “FLEXI CASH FLOW-2003” for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- bearing No.00465935 from the OPs for a term of 20 years and Rs.1422/- was to be paid by the complainant as quarterly premium which was being deposited by the complainant regularly.  It is further argued that on 29.08.2020 after expiry of 3^rd five years, the complainant applied for the money back amount of Rs.20,000/- through respondent No.1 in the shape of written/printed application but no amount was transferred into the account of complainant and remaining 40% amount i.e. Rs.40,000/- alongwith bonus etc. are to be paid after getting the maturity i.e. after 22.08.2025.  It is further argued that on 29.08.2020 the complainant made a complaint for non-refunding of Rs.20,000/- as money back but the OPs did not redress the grievances of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

8.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that on 29.08.2020 after the expiry of 3^rd five years, the complainant applied for the money back amount of Rs.20,000/- by submitting a written application.  It is further argued that the OPs received a request for the pay out of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant in September, 2020 and the same was adequately replied by the OPs on 30.09.2020 whereby the complainant was asked to submit the documents.  However, the said documents were never submitted by the complainant.

9.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  The grievance of the complainant is that on 29.08.2020 after expiry of 3^rd five years, the complainant applied for the money back amount of Rs.20,000/- through OP No.1 but they did not do so.  The complainant has drawn our attention towards the message dt. 29.09.2020 given by the complainant to the OPs and the same was replied by the Ops as per Annexure-C2 but despite that the OPs did not pay the amount of Rs.20,000/- as money back to the complainant.  The complainant has vehemently contended that the OPs also did not pay the Ist installment of Rs.20,000/- as money back and after passing the order dt. 22.07.2013 by this Commission as per Annexure-C1, the OPs have paid the Ist installment of Rs.20,000/- as money back.  On the other hand, the OPs have taken the stand that the complainant was specifically asked to submit original policy document, copy of valid photo ID proof, payout form, personal cancelled cheque, bank passbook or statement, PAN Card and policy owner photograph but the said documents were never submitted by the complainant.  Ld. counsel for the Ops has further contended that Policy Payout Request Form as per Annexure-C3 was given to the complainant but he did not filled-up the same.  We have perused the said form as per Annexure-C3, wherein in the column of mandatory documents, it is mentioned that “Original Policy document submitted for loan” and in the said form, there is column of Partial Withdrawal amount.  So, from perusal of said form, it is clear that the said form was meant for partial withdrawal or for taking the loan against the policy from the OPs.  Hence, the contention of Ops that the complainant did not submit the required documents as mentioned above has no force.  The OPs-Insurance Company has almost admitted the version of complainant but despite that they have not released the genuine claim of complainant.  It has come into knowledge of this Commission that the OPs-Insurance Company does not settle the petty and genuine claims of the customers whereas drag them to knock the doors of the court which clearly amounts to deficiency in service as-well-as unfair trade practice on their part and thereby harass the innocent and poor customers unnecessarily. 

10.            Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we direct the OPs to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of 3^rd installment of money back alongwith interest @ 8% p.a. from the due date i.e. 22.08.2020 till its realization and also direct the OPs to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly. 

11.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OPs shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:16.08.2023.  

                                                               

                                                                             (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.