Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/725/2016

Smt. Sneh Prabha Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Gautam Bhardwaj

19 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/725/2016
Date of Institution	:	01/09/2016
Date of Decision	:	19/06/2018

 

Smt.Sneh Prabha Arora, R/O House No.553, Sector 8-B, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S­

1.      Birla Sun Life Insurance Company, Regd. Office 1, India Bulls Centre, Tower-1, 16^th Floor, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013 through its General Manager.

2.      The Manager, Birla Sun Life Insurance Company, SCO No.226-227, Sector 34, Chandigarh.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                               

ARGUED BY

:

Sh.Gautam Bhardwaj, Counsel for Complainant. Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Vice Counsel for Sh.Nitin Thatai, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

PER RATTAN SINGH THAKUR, PRESIDENT

1.         The long and short of allegations are, complainant had taken a policy bearing No.005142506 on 27.11.2012 from opposite parties, branch office of which is situated at Sector 34, Chandigarh. The policy was taken through agent and sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid. Complainant was issued another policy against the renewal payment vide policy No.005875879 which amount as a matter of fact was paid as renewal premium for the year 2012 for the aforesaid policy. E-mail was sent on 01.01.2013 for cancellation of new policy and adjusting premium amount against the old policy. However, no such action was taken except refund of Rs.25,000/- against the new policy for cancellation. While, later on, it was informed that policy No.0051425068 stood elapsed because of non receipt of renewal premium. Maintained, in August 2013, two persons namely Girvinder and Agnihotri approached the complainant for issuance of insurance policies and two cheques of Rs.25,000/- each which were taken got encashed. But no such policies of this paid amount were received. Thereafter various correspondences were made, but it was not responded. Complainant is 75 years old and is spinster being looked after by her nephew. She was misrepresentated and there was unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties through their agents. Later on it was made known that policy No.005142506 terminated due to non receipt of the payment. Hence, there has been unfair trade practice and thus refund of total of three policies amount prayed for alongwith compensation and costs of litigation. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2.          In reply furnished, opposite parties have admitted the payment amount of three policies.  But in nutshell their case is claim of the complainant is not bonafide. One policy amount was refunded on intimation of cancellation of policy and whereas with regard to remaining policies renewal premium amount was not paid and also after issuance of policies in the free look period of 15 days option was not exercised for cancellation of policies as its terms and conditions were not acceptable. Hence, by implication terms & conditions after expiry of 15 days stood accepted. Thus, per terms & conditions amount of three policies is not refundable.
3.         Replication was filed and averments made in the complaint were reiterated. The parties have produced photocopies of documents, exchanged the affidavits in support of claim and defence.
4.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. From analysis of the record, our conclusions are as under:-
5.         Per pleadings of the parties, it is admitted case that in the year 2011, when the 1^st policy was taken, complainant was at the wrong side of 70 and as on date of preference of this consumer complaint, complainant was 75 year and as of now 78 year. It is also the case that complainant is spinster and there is none obviously had taken charge of her in this old age. This could be taken note of a person at the wrong side of 70 and nearing 80 year of age due to degenerative changes body and mind becomes frail and there is vulnerably & probability being exploited at the hands of agents of insurance company. We shall make reference to such probable exploitation in the paragraphs mentioned hereinafter.
6.         It is the case of complainant that she had taken the policy Annexure C-1 bearing No.005142506 and paid Rs.25,000/- and in the year 2012 Rs.25,000/- was paid as a renewal premium. If an old woman can purchase a new policy after one year, she was likely to deposit firstly the renewal premium of 1^st policy, then buy new 2^nd insurance policy. This is so being held having regard to natural course of events and fact that complainant is old woman and is in fag end of her life. There seems to be chances of being hoodwinked by agents in the manner disclosed in complaint.
7.         We shall refer to the paragraphs of the written statement which shows that policy No. 005875879 was cancelled in free look period. It was dated 26.12.2012. It shows that this policy was cancelled and amount was refunded. We shall make a reference to the allegations made in the complaint that one Girvinder and Agnihotri agents had deceived her at the fag end of her life. We shall refer to the record i.e. Annexure C-2 which shows that amount Rs.25,000/- paid was claimed & deposited as renewal premium of 1^st policy and was received by opposite parties. Not only this, there are other documents i.e. complaints made by complainant which are Annexure C-4, another complaint dated 28.05.2014, 16.07.2014, 05.06.2014 and application dated 01.02.2015. These document shows that from the year 2013 onwards, complainant entered into various correspondence and leveled the allegations. The chain of circumstances is such that probability of opposite parties having employed unfair trade practice are not ruled out. This is so derived from the correspondence which started from January 2013 onwards. It appears & believable as per record that this amount was paid as renewal premium of 1^st policy and instead of which new 2^nd regular policy was given by OP.  

8.             It is also deduced from the record that opposite parties claimed, terms and conditions were supplied and 15 days free look period was given to accept or reject the policies. The policies and terms & conditions were sent through courier to the complainant. It is case of complainant; no such terms and conditions were received by her. There is reference made in the reply that these were sent through Blue Dart Courier. We have scrutinized the record, but could not lay hands on any dispatch record of the said policies i.e. to say receipt issued by Blue Dart and further there is no proof that these were received by complainant. Complainant in the evening of her life had sworn in affidavit that no such policies were received and in such situation documentary evidence were required to be produced by opposite parties of dispatch of policies & its receipt, which they have failed to do so.

9.             We shall refer here, contention was raised by opposite parties of complaint being time barred. First policy was issued in the year 2011 and then premium become due in the year 2012, correspondence was made in the year 2013 and thereafter complainant sent on e-mails, letters, complaints, but finally the notice was issued in the year 2016 and on the complete refusal of the opposite parties, instant complaint was filed on 01.09.2016. This shows cause of action allegedly accrued in year 2015 when claim was denied in totality. The instant complaint was filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. Therefore, it is well within time period of two years.

10.           In view of the aforesaid evaluation of the record, complaint succeeds and is hereby allowed. Following directions are passed against opposite parties:-

1.     Opposite Parties are directed to refund an       amount of Rs.75,000/- of the policies referred in         the   complaint i.e. actual deposit of amounts   alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of   deposit of this        amount with the opposite parties.

2.     Opposite Parties are directed to pay        compensation of Rs.30,000/- for mental &         physical harassment to complainant.

3.     Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.15,000/-    towards costs of litigation.

11.           This order shall be complied with by the opposite parties within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy; failing which the opposite parties shall be liable to make payment of interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of direction nos.1 & 2 from the date of this order till realization, apart from making payment of costs of litigation.

12.           The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

                                                                                                                                                                                 Sd/-           

Announced                                                  [RATTAN SINGH THAKUR]

19^th June, 2018                                                         PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                     

                                                                                                Sd/-           

[SURESH KUMAR SARDANA]

MEMBER