CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/75/14

          Date of Institution:-    03.02.2014

          Order Reserved on:- 13.03.2024

                    Date of Decision:-      13.09.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Usha Sharma

D/o Late Sh. BhajanLal Sharma

R/o RZ-1121-A/1, Gali No.10,

Palam Colony,

New Delhi - 110045                                      .….. Complainant

VERSUS

1. Mr. Raj Bhatia

Branch Head

M/s Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

201-202, Second Floor,

Plot No.12,

Bhagwati Plaza, Sector-5, Dwarka,

New Delhi – 110075

2. Ms.DeepikaMalhotra

Agent/Advisor Code AG4973

M/s Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

201-202, Second Floor,

Plot No.12,

Bhagwati Plaza, Sector-5, Dwarka,

New Delhi – 110075

3. Louis Jallaknoor

Customer Service Officer

M/s Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

G Corp Tech Park, 5 & 6^th Floor,

KasarWdavali, Ghodbunder Road,

Thane – 400601…..Opposite Parties

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thatOPs are into the business of insurance under the name and style of M/s Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. She has taken the insurance plan called “Dream Plan” vide policy number 003714349 on 28.12.2009 for a term of 20 years with annual premium of Rs.1 lakh. The premium was deposited vide cheque no.182961 dated 04.01.2010 drawn on State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. The policy was taken through Mr.AnkitBahal, Advisor.
   Mr.AnkitBahal was not in touch at the time of the payment of second premium in December-January, 2010. She went to the office of the Op for the deposit of second instalment of Rs.1 lakh where one boy and one girl met her who took policy documents from her and told that this is a very loss policy. They assured to refund 80-90% of the premium paid by her or adjustment in the third premium of new plan i.e. Platinum Advantage Plan. She was introduced to Mr.VimalInduJha and Ms.DeepikaMalhotra(mobile nos. 9911221477 and 9911311667). She was compelled to invest in Platinum Advantage Plan. The plan was for a term of 10 years with pay term for 5 years. The policy number 004662242 against premium of Rs.1 lakh was issued. She called Mr.Vimal and Ms.Deepika after the completion of second for the refund of 80-90% of the first premium of Rs.1 lakh paid against Dream plan for adjustment in the third premium as agreed but OPs failed to do so. On 15.10.2013, she sent an email to OP-3 and even met OP-1 but without any result upon which a letter dated 30.07.2013 was written by him to the OPs but in vain. She has come under huge financial loss due to the fraud played upon her for which OPs are liable to compensate her. Hence, this complaint.

2. The OPs No.1, 3 and 4 have filed the joint reply to the effect that complaint does not fulfil the requirements of definition “complaint” because there is not a single allegation to show deficieny of service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. The complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. The complainant has filed an application no.A-32312538 dated 28.12.2009 in her own name for BSLI Dream Plan for a sum assured of Rs.1439320/- for a term of 20 years with a premium of Rs.1 lakh per annum. The policy no.003714349 was issued on the receipt of payment and document. The detailed description of the said policy plan was given to the complainant. The application was signed by the complainant. The complainant submitted another application bearing no.42219882 dated 20.01.2011 in her own name for BSLI Platinum Advantage for a sum assured of Rs.676515/- with premium of Rs.100003/- for a term period of 10 years. The policy bearing no.004662242 was issued on the receipt of premium and documents. The policy details were disclosed to the complainant. The application was duly signed by the complainant. The terms and conditions of the policy say that complainant has right to reconsider/free look within 15 days from the receipt of policy within which period complainant can cancel the policy but no such request was received from the complainant. The complainant was fully aware of the terms and conditions of the policies. The complainant herself has duly purchased the life insurance policy from the OP. The complainant has disclosed her qualification post-graduation at the time of taking the first policy and graduate at the time of taking he second policy with income of
   Rs.5 lakh.The complainant was satisfied with the plan/policies. The complainant has failed to pay second premium of policy no.003714349 and policy was lapsed due to the non-payment of premium in the year 2011. The allegations of the complainant are denied.

3. The complainant has filed the rejoinder wherein she has denied the averments of the written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the complaint.

4. The parties were directed to lead the evidence.

5. The complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence wherein she has corroborated the version of complaint and placed reliance on the documents Ex.CW1/1 to CW1/7.

6. The OPhas filed the affidavit of Ms.AakritiManocha in evidencewherein she has corroborated the version of written statement and placed reliance on the documents Ex.RW1/1 to RW1/4.

7. We have heard the complainant as no one has turned up on behalf of the OP to address arguments and perused the entire material on record.

8. The perusal of the entire material on record shows that complainant has filled application/proposal form no.32312538 Ex.RW1/3 for taking the plan BSLI Dream Plan with sum assured of Rs.14,39,320/- against a premium of Rs.1 lakh per annum. The complainant is a teacher. The policy bearing no.003714349 was issued with compete details. The same is Ex.CW1/1/Ex.RW1/2.

9. The complainant has filled application/proposal form no.42219882 Ex.CW1/3 for taking the plan Platinum Advantage Plan with sum assured of Rs.6,76,515/- with premium of Rs.100003/- for a term period of 10 years. The complainant is a teacher. The policy bearing no.004662242 Ex.CW1/3 was issued with compete details. The complainant has undergone medical examination before the issuance of the policy as clear from the test reports annexed with Ex.CW1/3.

10. The complainant is a teacher. She has filled the proposal forms for both the policies under her signature. She is an educated lady who could have very well understood the policy or plan which she is taking. She cannot come out of the proposal formsduly signed by her and shift the responsibility on some other person. A person is bound by a document duly filled and signed by him or her. It does not lie in the mouth of complainant that she was not aware of the kind of plan being issued to her. The policieswith terms and conditions were received by her. She could have read the same and availed free look period to cancel the plan in case she was not satisfied with the same. She has not opted to do so during the free look period for the reasons best known to her which shows that she was satisfied with the plan taken by her from the OP. The complainant cannot take advantage of her own negligence. The plan as per proposal forms were issued so no fault can be found with the plans issued by Birla Sunlife Insurance Co. Ltd.

11. The Commission cannot look into the alleged allegations of cheating/misrepresentations allegedly on the part of Mr.VimalInduJha and Ms.DeepikaMalhotra for taking the policy as it needs detailed evidence and such type of allegations cannot be determined in a summary proceedings.

12. There is nothing on record to show any deficiency of service on the part of OPs in issuing the policy/plan in terms of the proposal forms filled by the complainant.

13. In view of above discussion, the complainant has failed to substantiate the allegations as set out in the complaint. No deficiency of service is found on the part of OPs and accordingly the complaint is dismissed.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 13.09.2024.