DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/344/2014
No. DF/ Central/
Sh. Vijay Mathur
S/O Lt. Sh. R.N. Mathur
R/O 159 D, Pocket ‘E’
DDA Flats, GTB Enclave,
Delhi-110093
…..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
1. Birla Sun Life Insurance
Through its Director/CEO
Having its office at Rachna Cinema
New Delhi-110008
2. M/S Aditya Birla Money Mart Ltd.
Through its Directors
A-270, First Floor, Defence Colony,
New Delhi. …..OPPOSITE PARTIES
Quorum : Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
ORDER
Rekha Rani, President
1. Instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended alleging therein that two persons namely Naresh Kumar and Rajiv Verma claiming to be executive and manager respectively of Aditya Birla Money Mart Ltd. (in short OP2) represented to the complainant that they are selling life insurance policy of Birla Sun Life Insurance (in short OP1) and on investment of Rs. 2,00,000/-, complainant would get an over draft of Rs. 50,00,000/-. To get confidence of the complainant the said persons provided printed brochures and glossy pamphlets. Induced by the representation of the said persons, complainant gave four cheques bearing number 150220, 150219, 150218 and 150221 of Rs. 50,000/- each dated 24.01.2012 drawn on DCB Bank, Chandni Chowk Branch, Delhi. Complainant was also assured that he would get two policies of Rs. 1,00,000/- each in the name of his daughter Richie Mathur and wife Sulekha Mathur and O/D limit up to Rs. 25,00,000/- each for his business. Complainant was shocked when he received two policy papers from OP1of Rs.1,51,967/- and Rs. 28,265/- dated 09.02.2012 each in the name of Richie Mathur and Vijay Mathur and Sulekha Mathur and Vijay Mathur. Complainant then visited the office of OP1 where he was informed that they did not have any policy in which investor could get an O/D facility. In March 2012, complainant received a cheque of Rs. 19,767.29/- from OP1. On making several calls to the OPs, complainant was informed that O/D facility was offered to him by their channel partner Veldi Consultants. Complainant contacted OPs to get the policies cancelled or for sanction of O/D limit as promised by their representatives but all in vain. Hence, the complaint seeking direction to OPs to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs. 1,80,233/- with interest of 24% per annum w.e.f. 24.01.2012 along with litigation cost and compensation for causing mental agony.
2. Notice of the instant complaint was issued to the OPs who appeared and contested claim vide their reply. OP2 was proceeded as ex-parte vide order dated 23.08.2017. OP1 in its reply stated that the complainant has not come to the forum with clean hands. It is stated that individuals mentioned in the complaint namely Naresh Kumar and Rajiv Verma are neither the agents nor representatives of OP and that the mobile numbers mentioned in the complaint do not belong to the OP. It is also stated that the OP does not provide any O/D facility as stated in the complaint. It is also stated that the complainant has not made Veldi Consultants as a party in the complaint. Further, it is stated that complainant applied for 3 insurance policies in December 2011 for which the application/proposal number is A45359018, A45519215 and A45504494 dated 20.11.2011. It is further stated that cheques issued by the complainant towards premium of the policy were dishonored by the bank. It is pleaded that complainant again applied for 3 policies having number 005297970, 005297983and 005342148 and that he had written a letter to the OP wherein it was requested by the complainant to reject the above mentioned policies due to personal reason and transfer the funds in the new policies in the name of his daughter Richie Mathur and wife Sulekha Mathur having application no. A45518743 and M3859449. On his request his daughter and wife were life insured vide policy no. 005342921 and 005343244 dated 31.01.2012 and 09.02.2012 respectively. It is stated that complainant paid Rs. 2,00,000/- in lieu of the said two policies. It is further stated that premium towards the said policies was Rs. 28,265/- and Rs. 1,51,968/- respectively and accordingly excess amount of Rs. 19,767/- was refunded to the complainant vide cheque number 220683 dated 15.02.2012 which was encashed by the complainant on 29.03.2012. It is further stated that the complainant had an option of cancellation of the policy within 15 days of Freelook Period and not thereafter. It is denied that there is any deficiency of service of the OPs.
3. Complainant was given an opportunity to file rejoinder. However he did not file the same. We have heard Sh. Rohit Jain, advocate for OP1. None appeared for the complainant to argue.
4. Our attention was drawn to Annexure R/1 available at page 18 of the case file which is a letter written by the complainant to OP1 wherein he has mentioned that he applied for 3 policies. He requested OP to reject the three policies and transfer the fund to new policies in the name of his daughter Richie Mathur vide application no. M3859449 and his wife Sukhela Mathur vide application no. A45518743.
5. Complainant in Para 1 of the complaint mentioned that he is into a business of supply of electrical equipments and in Para 4, 5 and 6 has stated that he was given an assurance by the two persons namely Naresh Kumar and Rajiv Verma that OP1 would arrange O/D limit to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- on his investment of Rs. 2,00,000/-. OP has stated that it does not extend facility of O/D on investment on the facts alleged by the complainant.
6. In his legal notice, complainant has reiterated that he is doing business of supply of electrical equipments. It is further stated that he was given an assurance that he would get insurance as well as O/D limit up to Rs. 50,00,000/- for his business. So the purpose for taking the policy was to obtain O/D facility for his business. In other words, O/D facility was meant to earn profits. It very clearly related to availing services for enjoying an O/D facility which is a commercial activity done for earning profits and therefore the complainant is not a consumer within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
7. It is not in dispute that the policy could be cancelled within a Freelook Period of 15 days. Complainant has not placed anything on record that he had approached OP for cancellation of policy within 15 days of the issuance of the policy thereof. Learned counsel for OP has relied on the judgment of the National Commission in Shrikant Murlidhar Apte Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Revision Petition No. 634 of 2012 in support of its contention that once 15 days of cooling off period is over, policy becomes binding on both the parties. It is submitted that since complainant retained the policy documents and did not raise any objection during the Freelook Period of 15 days, it means that he agreed to the terms and conditions of the policy. There is substance in said submissions.
8. Complaint is accordingly devoid of merits. Copy of the same be retained on record. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.
Announced this Day of 2018.
