DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:757 of 2010] -------------------------------------- Date of Institution :22.04.2010 Date of Decision :18.05.2012 -------------------------------------- Sh. Gopal Kumar resident of House No.329, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh. ….Complainant. (VERSUS) [1] Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.149-150, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Manager. [2] Smt. Mandeep Kaur, Authorised Agent of OP No.1 (Address of the OP No.2 to be disclosed by OP No.1) Note: OP No.2 Smt. Mandeep Kaur has been deleted from the array of OPs vide order dated 23.02.2012). ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Vivek Mohan Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. OP No.1 already exparte. OP No.2 deleted. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT [1] Sh. Gopal Kumar has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed:- i) To refund the premium amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant along with interest @24% per annum from the date of payment till realization; ii) To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony; iii) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. iv) To award any other relief, which the Forum deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. [2] The facts necessary to appreciate the points involved in the present complaint are as under: - On 26.07.2008, at the behest of Smt. Mandeep Kaur (OP No.2), the complainant got his life insured for a period of 15 years for an assured sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. He paid the first premium of Rs.20,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.288690 dated 26.07.2008. The product sold to him belonged to Birla Sun Life Insurance Company (OP No.1) and is known as “Jeevan Saral Plan”. According to the complainant, at the time of proposing for the said policy, he was told by Smt. Mandeep Kaur that the policy containing all the terms and conditions will be received by the complainant within few days. It has further been averred that the complainant waited for few months but he did not receive the policy. So, he approached Smt. Mandeep Kaur to find out as to why the policy has not been sent to him. However, he found that Smt. Mandeep Kaur has left the premises and has shifted to some other place. In these circumstances, according to the complainant, he approached OP No.1 directly. The person present in the office of OP No.1 assured him that the policy will be sent to him in near future. The person present there also told the complainant that the policy number of the complainant is 001883172. According to the complainant, he was also told that the premium of the policy, which was purchased by him, is Rs.19,035/-. The amount received in excess shall be returned to him. It has further been pleaded by the complainant that he waited for 6-7 months but neither he received the refund of the excess amount paid by him nor did he receive the policy. So, he again visited the office of OP No.1 repeatedly but to no effect. Ultimately, he met the Manager of OP No.1 who also assured him that the policy will be sent to him with in a few days. The case of the complainant is that despite payment of the premium in the year 2008, he has not received the policy till date nor the amount paid by him in excess to the premium has been refunded to him so far. This act of OP, according to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking the reliefs mentioned above. [3] In the written statement filed by OP No.1, the factum of receipt of the proposal form and a cheque of Rs.20,000/- has been admitted. The case of OP No.1 is that on receipt of the application, policy named as “Saral Jeevan Plan” was issued to the complainant on 28.08.2009 and the excess amount was also refunded to him vide cheque No.684481 dated 17.09.2008. It has further been pleaded that along with the policy, a letter was sent to the complainant intimating him that he has a right to reconsider his option. In case he was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, he could review his decision and make a request for cancellation of the policy within 15 days of the receipt of the policy. It has further been pleaded that no request for cancellation of the policy was ever received. Thereafter, the complainant failed to pay the next premium, which became due on 28.08.2009. A letter was sent to the complainant requesting him to make the payment of the second premium but to no effect. Another reminder was given but despite it, the complainant did not deposit the premium for the second year. So, ultimately, the policy lapsed for non payment of the premium. According to OP No.1, the complainant is neither entitled for refund of the amount paid by him nor is he entitled to the reliefs claimed by him. Thus, according to OP No.1, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. [4] Initially, Sh. Shokeen Ali, Advocate had appeared on behalf of both the OPs i.e. OP No.1 and 2. Subsequently, on 20.5.2011, since none appeared on their behalf, therefore, OPs were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 20.5.2011. On 7.6.2011, the exparte proceedings against OP No.1 were set aside as Sh. Vikas Vashisht, Advocate appeared on its behalf. However, on 23.02.2012, OP No.2 was ordered to be deleted from the array of OPs on the statement effected by the complainant, which reads as under: - “I do not press this complaint against OP-2. Its name be deleted from the array of the OPs.” [5] We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. [6] It is the admitted case of the parties that the complainant had got his life insured for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for a period of 15 years by purchasing the policy known as “Saral Jeevan Plan” from OP No.1. He had submitted a proposal form/application to this effect (Annexure –I placed on record by OP No.1) and had also admittedly paid a cheque of Rs.20,000/- despite the fact that the premium was of Rs.19,035/-. [7] The case of OP, on the other hand, is that the amount paid in excess i.e. Rs.965/- was sent to the complainant vide cheque No.684481 dated 17.09.2008 and policy No.001883172 was also dispatched to the complainant on 28.08.2008. Neither the copy of the said cheque has been placed on record nor any document to prove that the said cheque was dispatched to the complainant has been placed on record. There is no proof of dispatch of policy No.001883172 to the complainant by the OP. The OP is a commercial organization and it is expected that it will keep record of all the dispatches made from its office. In the absence of any documentary proof regarding the dispatch of the policy and the cheque mentioned above, to our mind, from the bald affidavit of Sh. Lalit Vermani (Authorised Representative of OP), it is not proved that the cheque of Rs.965/- and the policy were dispatched to the complainant. Even the statement of account showing that a sum of Rs.965/- was debited from the account of the OP and was credited in the account of the complainant has not been placed on record. In these circumstances, the averments made in the written statement to the effect that a sum of Rs.965/- was refunded to the complainant and the policy was sent to him, are not duly proved. [8] Thus, from the evidence on record, it is proved that despite having received the premium, the OP did not issue the policy, which amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to the refund of Rs.20,000/- paid by him as the first premium. This view of ours stands fortified by the ratio of the case titled Peerless General Financial & Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. Orissa Consumer Association reported as IV (2003) CPJ 614 wherein the Hon’ble Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held as under: - “Once the policy was not issued, there would be no excuse/ explanation on the part of the Company to take a defence that the premiums would not be refunded and we are also not able to accept its case that in such a situation when after receiving the premiums the policy was not issued the Company should be allowed to say not to refund the amount. This is clearly a deficiency in service. The complainant having been deprived of the enjoyment of his money which was kept back by the Insurance Company, he is entitled to get refund in spite of the fact that there might have been some delay or latches on the part of the complainant in not paying the premiums in time.” [9] In view of the foregoing discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the OP (Birla Sun Life Insurance Company) is directed to:- i) refund a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant being the amount of premium paid by him along with interest @9% per annum from 30.07.2009 [(the date on which the amount of Rs.20,000/- was debited from the account of the complainant as per Accounts Statement (Annexure C-1)]; (ii) pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs. [10] The above said order shall be complied with within 45 days of its receipt; thereafter, the opposite party shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs.20,000/- from the said date i.e.30.07.2009 till actual payment, besides payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. [11] Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 18th May, 2012. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
DISTRICT FORUM – II | | CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.757 OF 2010 | | PRESENT: None. | ORDER Arguments were heard on 17.05.2012. The case was reserved for orders. Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the present complaint has been allowed. |
18.05.2012 | [J. S. SIDHU] | [LAKSHMAN SHARMA] | [MADHU MUTNEJA] | | MEMBER | PRESIDENT | MEMBER |
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
