BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 101 of 2014.
Date of Institution: 09.04.2014.
Date of Order: 25.04.2019.
Ajit Singh son of Shri Jug Lal, resident of village Mauri, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, Office One Indiabulls Centre, Tower 1, 15 & 16th floor, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Senapti Bapot Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013.
2. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch Officer Bhiwani.
3. Avinash agent Endeavour Insurance Broking Pvt. Ltd., Advior Code-001922.
…...Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection, Act, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
Present: Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Sandeep Sangwan, Advocate for the OPs No. 1 & 2.
OP No. 3 already given up.
ORDER:-
PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the OP No.3 agent of the OPs Company visited the house of the complainant in the month of November, 2011 and it was told by the agent that on single payment of Rs.98,000/-, the company would pay monthly pension and in the last the amount would be refunded to insured by the company. It is further alleged that on the assurance given by the agent the complainant had purchased the pension plan policy by paying Rs. 98,000/- for 16 years i.e. till the year 2027 and the agent has given the policy bond No.005818295 dated 8.11.2012. It is further alleged that the agent has further told that in case of death of complainant double amount will be paid to the nominee. It is further alleged that when no pension given to the complainant, he approached the OP No. 3 many times, but to no effect. It is further alleged that lateron complainant came to know that the OP No. 3 has not insured the complainant under pension plan, rather he insured the complainant on yearly payment of premium of Rs.98,000/- till the year 2027. It is further alleged that the complainant is a senior citizen and is unable to deposit Rs.98,000/- per year being premium. It is further alleged that the complainant has requested the OPs many times and visited the OPs time and again for obtaining total amount deposited alongwith interest, but to no effect. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, the present complaint.
2. On notice, OPs No. 1 & 2 appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement denying all the allegations of complainant. It is alleged that the complainant after understanding all the terms & conditions of all the plans opted to purchase Birla Sun Life Insurance Vision Plan. It is further alleged that the complainant also filled the proposal form No.A-46366792 on 30.10.2012 and at the time of filling the proposal form, the complainant opted to pay Rs.98000/- PA as basic premium, sum assured of Rs.10,76,600/- and also opted the policy term as 16 years and premium paying term 16 years and payment method direct bill and payment mode annually. It is further alleged that after receive of proposal form and going through the entire contents of the proposal form, the underwriters of the policy had issued the Insurance Policy bearing No.005818295 on 8.11.2012 to the complainant and sent the policy documents alongwith all terms & conditions of the policy to the complainant on given address and the same was duly received by the complainant and same is in his possession and this fact was admitted by him in his complaint. It is specifically mentioned that as per the Provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938 IRDA Act, 1999 and rules a& regulations made there under the insured have an option to reconsider the policy under the free look period and he can withdraw/return the policy within 15 days i.e. under the “Free Look Period” provision, but the complainant did not do so, which clearly showed that he agreed with the same and found the contents of policy accordingly. It is further alleged that complainant opted the insurance plan of traditional Plan and this fact clearly mentioned in policy documents. It is further alleged that complainant paid only first premium and thereafter he did not pay premium, so the policy of the complainant lapsed due to non-payment of requisite premium, as per terms & conditions without value. It is further alleged that the complainant himself violated the terms & conditions of the policy, so he is not entitled to any relief. It is further alleged that the complainant filed a false and frivolous complaint and by twisting the facts, so the same is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs, as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. During the pendency of the case, the ld. counsel for the complainant has given up the OP No. 3 being unnecessary vide his statement dated 10.7.2017.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in support of his case placed on record duly sworn affidavit as Ex. CW1/A and document Annexure C1 in support of his case and closed the evidence.
5. Ld. counsel for the OPs No. 1 & 2 failed to produce any kind of documentary evidence in support of their case despite availing several opportunities and the evidence of the OPs No. 1 & 2 has been closed vide order dated 27.3.2019.
6. We have heard the ld. counsel for both the parties at length and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. Ld. counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant believing the OPs invested the amount of Rs. 98,000/-, but the OPs have misguided him. Ld. counsel for the complainant further contended that the complainant approached the OPs for surrender of the policy, but the OPs failed in refunding the same. He has further contended that in this way, the Ops were having dishonest intention from the very beginning and as such, the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.98,000/- alongwith interest.
8. Ld. Counsel for the OPs No. 1 & 2 reiterated the contents of the written statement. He has contended that complainant has failed in withdraw/return the policy within 15 days i.e. under the “Free Look Period” provision. He further contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
9. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material available on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant deserve acceptance as there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs No. 1 & 2. From the above said contentions of the complainant as well as of the OPs No. 1 & 2, it is clear that the Ops did not refund the amount of Rs. 98,000/- and delayed the matter on one pretext or the other and deceived the complainant. Complainant has successfully proved his case by placing on record certain documents i.e. his duly sworn affidavit Ex. CW1/A and policy as Annexure C1. On the other hand, the OPs No. 1 & 2 have failed to produce some documentary evidence on record in support of their stand taken by them in written statement. Moreover, the OPs No. 1 & 2 have taken the hard earned money from the complainant for investment purpose in market and the complainant after paying this amount to OPs No. 1 & 2 has never taken any benefit or service from them. The OPs No. 1 & 2 are still enjoying the usufruct of this huge amount of Rs.98,000/-. It is also considered by us that the OPs No.1 & 2 have also borne some processing expenditure i.e. commission of agent etc. etc. at the time of issuing the insurance policy. In view of above circumstances and in the interest of justice, the complainant is entitled to get refund at least an amount of Rs. 73,500/- being 75% of the premium deposited by him with the OPs No. 1 & 2.
10. Moreover, Insurance Companies deliberately with malafide intention does not refund the hard earned money of its consumers in time and harassed them without any reason. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a beneficial legislation for the consumers and strict proof as required under the Indian Evidence Act does not required to be proved under the C. P. Act before the Consumer Courts. The agents of the insurance companies always mislead the people just to grab their money. The principal i.e. insurance company is equally liable for any mis-act/conduct done by his agent. So in our view, complainant is also entitled for compensation on account of mental & physical harassment & punitive damages for deficiency in service & mal-trade practice on the part of the Insurance Company. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed with costs and the OPs No. 1 & 2 are directed to:-
i. To refund an amount Rs.73,500/- (Seventy three thousand five hundred only) being 75% amount of premium amount, to complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till its realization.
ii) To pay Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand only) as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship, due to deficiency in service & mal trade practice on the part of OPs and punitive damages.
iii) To pay Rs.5000/- (Five thousand only) as counsel fee as well as the litigation charges.
The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 25.04.2019.
(Saroj Bala Bohra) (Parmod Kumar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
