DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

MAHARANA PARTAP BUS TERMINAL: 5^th  FLOOR.

KASHMERE GATE DELHI.

No. DF / Central/ 2015

Case No. 329/12

Vijay Rangen

S/o Sh. Badri Das

R/o B-46 Hardev Nagar,

Jharoda, Burari,

Delhi-110084                                                                            ..........Complainant

Versus

1. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd

C1-C3 PP Towers 5^th Floor

Pitampura, Delhi-110034

2. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd
182.  

Darya Ganj, Opp. Golcha Cinema

                                      ..........Respondent/OP

BEFORE

SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT

SH. S. N. SHUKLA, MEMBER

ORDER

Per Sh. RakeshKapoor, President

    It is alleged by the complainant that he is an old customer as alleged by the Ops. It is alleged that in August 2011 he had received a call from the customer service department of the OP in respect of the issuance of a new policy.  He was informed that as per the new policy he would have to deposit a single premium of Rs. 40,000/- and at the end of one year he will be entitled to get a basic sum assured of Rs. 4,00,800+ 5% of the monthly basic premium. The complainant had agreed to take the benefit of the policy and handed over a cheque to the representative of the OP namely Mr. Abhishek and Hitesh having mobile Nos 99579966 and 9555057814 respectively.  It is alleged by the complainant that after having paid the aforesaid amount he had received two letters dated 1.9.2011 and a schedule which were in accordance of the representations made to him.  It is alleged by the complainant that in November 2011, he had visited the OP and had shown the letters received by him. He was shocked and surprised to learn that no such policy have been issued to him.   On further enquiry he was issued with a duplicate policy containing a wrong postal address and a report of the medical examiner containing his forged signatures despite the fact that no medical examination had been conducted.  The complainant has alleged that the Ops had cheated him and had, therefore, approached this forum for redressal of his grievance. 

The Ops has contested the complaint and has filed a written statement. It has denied any deficiency in service and the complaint is malafide and is based on true facts. Paras 2 to 6 of the parawise reply of the complaint is relevant and is being reproduced as under:-

2.That the contents of Para 2 of the complaint are admitted to the fact that the complainant is an old customer of the respondent. The rest of the contents of the said para are wrong and denied and the complainant be put to strict proof of the same. It was the complainant who contacted the respondent was a new policy and on his request the policy in question was issued after completing all kind of formalities/ requirements.

3. That the contents of the para 3 of the complaint are wrong and denied and the complainant be put to strict proof of the same. The complainant was never told by the representatives of the respondent that the complainant would be getting a sum of Rs 4,00,800/- + 5% of monthly basic premium after one year. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the new policy issued to the customer vide no. 005050739; the policy premium is Rs 38,584.58 , Sum assured is Rs 5,35,000/- and the tenure of the policy is 18 years. The said details are contained in policy illustration which is filed herewith as Annexure B. the said illustration clearly shows that after a period of 18 years the complainant is entitlted to get a sum of Rs. 12,89,136 if the policy continues as per the terms and conditions governing the same.

4. That the contents of Para 4 of the complaint are wrong and denied and the complainant be putto strict proof of the same.

5. That the contents of the para 5 are wrong and denied and the complainant be put to strict proof of the same. It is pertinent to mention here that Annexure A and Annexure B was never issued by the respondent company and the same are false and fabricated. It is further to mention here that both the said annexure are related to the old policy of the complainant vide no. 003149842 and has no relevancy with the same policy.

6. That the contents of para 6 of the complaint are wrong and denied and the complainant be put to strict proof of the same. If the policy was not generated on the address furnished by the complainant then how the same was received by him. The fact remains that the same was issued on the address furnished by the complainant. The copy of Vodafone bill furnished by the complainant in support of his address is filed herewith as Annexure C.

a) That the contents of the said para are wrong and denied since the same was sent on the address furnished by the complainant duly supported by address proof i.e. Vodafone Bill.

b) That the contents of said para are wrong and denied and it is apparent in view of the fact that the medical examination report is duly singed by the complainant at the relevant place.

     We  have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.

      The complainant has placed on record a copy of the letter dated 1.9.2011 received by him from the OP along with a schedule showing the payment due and the dte of maturity . the letter dated 1.9.2011 reads as under:-

Letter dated 01/09/2011

Sub: Issuance of policy under application for life insurance policy towards single premium plan dated 01/09/2011. On the life self.

 We would like to thank you for investing your faith in us. Your policy  requires single premium to be paid for 1 year.

We offer you a fifteen day free look period as per clause on free look period under this policy. Any application for free look cancellation made after the laps of above referred 15 days, shall not be entertained.

     For any queries kindly write to us at the below mentioned address and we assure an and strive to provide you the best of sevices.

     Sd/-

     BSILCL

The complainant has also paced on record a copy of the letter dated whereby a duplicate copy of the poliy was provided to the complainant. The letter reads as under:-

Letter dated 07/09/2012

Thank you for choosing Birla Sun Life Insurance as your partner for security your family’s future. We refer to your request received at our end for issuance of a duplicate policy document.

A duplicate copy has been issued duly stamped in lieu of the original document which is lost/ misplaced. The duplicate policy document will be equally effective legally in any transaction as must as the original document itself.

Further, we would like to inform you that the insurance of this duplicate policy documents does not entitle the policy owner towards application for a free look period.

Your policy is an important long term financial planning tool; receive timely alerts and information regarding your policy by ensuring that your latest contact details are updated with us at all times. Kindly visit our website or the nearest branch for assistance in registration of your updated contact information.

In case you require any information or assistance , our customer service executives would be glad to help you. Please feel free to get in touch with us at your convenience on the touch points mentioned overleaf.

It is our endeavor to enhance your financial future by providing you the best services at all times.

 A copy of the policy has also been placed on record by the complainant which records his address as  J-10, 2^nd Floor, Old Double Storey Lajpat Nagar , New Delhi. Neither the letter dated 7.9.2012 nor the policy have a stipulation that the insured had the option of rejecting the policy wherein the free look in period of 15 days.  This is against the IRDA guidelines whereby it has been enjoined upon the insurance companies to incorporate such a stipulation. The complainant was, therefore, entitled to cancellation of the policy issued in his favour.  The refusal to do so is an act of deficiency on the part of the oP. 

The matter does not end here. During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant had moved an application to direct the Vodafone Cellular Company to produce the details of mobile no. 9999579966 which was being used by Sh. Abhishek ,a representative of the OP.  it was stated in the application that the policy document shows  that this mobile no. was used in the proposal form and a wrong address was mentioned belonging to Lajpat Nagar.  M/s Vodafone had filed a reply wherein they have specifically stated that this no. was issued to one Shiv Shankar R/o 182, Katra Banyan Bazar Lal Quan Delhi-110006.  It is , therefore, clear that there was some mingling in the office of the OP and its representatives were trying to do gullible customers into obtaining fresh policies by misrepresent ating facts. The OP has disowned letter dated 1.9.2011 (as reproduced above) without placing on record the affidavit of the person who is purported to have issued the certificate.  We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that apart from deficient in rendering service the OP has resorted to an unfair trade practice in the aforesaid case. In the result we direct the OP as under:-

1. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 40,000/- along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of deposit till payment.
2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and pain suffered by the complainant.

3. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5000/- as cost of litigation.

     The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall belliable to pay interest onthe entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum.  IF the OP fails to comply with thi;s order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

    Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.  File be consigned to record room.

    Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................

(S N SHUKLA)                        (RAKESH KAPOOR)

     MEMBER                              PRESIDENT