Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/370/2014

Jasbinder Singh (Policy owner) - Complainant(s)

Versus

Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Aggarwal

14 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/370/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	29/05/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	14/12/2015

 

 

 

 

 

1.   Jasbinder Singh (Policy Owner)

 

2.   Amanpreet Kaur (Insured) daughter of Sh. Jasbinder Singh both residents of House No. 1257, Phase-9, Near Petrol Pump, Mohali.

……….. Complainants.

 

VERSUS

 

1.   Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.149-150, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Head.

 

2.   Endeavour Insurance Broking Pvt. Limited, (Advisor of OP No.1), Advisor Code 001922, 205, Chokhani Square, P-4, Sector 18, Noida – 201301 (UP), through its Director. (Deleted vide order dated 19.8.2015).

 

3.   Deepak Ratnagar, Agent, Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No. 149-150, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

……….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainants	:	Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate.
For OP No.1	:	Sh. Nitin Thatai, Advocate.
For OP No.2	:	Deleted
For OP No.3	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

         

1.      Tersely, the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint and emanating from the record are that, the Complainant No.1 had got a Policy No.005157617 in the name of her daughter (Complainant No.2), on the coercion of the Opposite Parties to buy the said Policy for getting redemption of his earlier Policy of TATA AIG. The Agent of the OP-Insurance Company had also assured the Complainant No.1 that on redemption, the amount of Rs.91,210/- invested by him would be refunded. However, when neither the redemption nor the refund was made, the Complainant No.1 requested the Opposite Party No.1 on 21.03.2012 (Annexure C-4) to cancel the policy and to refund the amount, which was denied by the Opposite Party No.1 on 09.04.2012 on the ground that he did not opt for cancellation within the free look period of 15 days (Annexure C-5). Pursuant thereto, the Complainant sent another representation dated 09.04.2012 through speed post (Annexure C-6), as well as through e-mail on 18.5.2012 (Annexure C-7), in response whereof, vide reply dated 28.5.2012 the OP-Insurance Company again declined the request of the Complainant due to non-utilization of the 15 days free look in period (Annexure C-9). Thereafter, a representation was made to the Grievances Officer, BSLI (Annexure C-10) on 23.06.2012, which was again declined taking shelter of 15 days look-in period vide e-mail dated 10.07.2012 (Annexure C-11). It has been averred that the Complainant also preferred a Review Petition on 21.10.2012 (Annexure C-12), which was also rejected vide Annexure C-13 dated 02.11.2012. It has been stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, has not been redressed, left with no alternative, the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), has been filed before this Forum, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No.3 despite service, therefore, he was proceeded ex-parte on 17.07.2014.

 

3.      In view of the endorsement made by the learned Counsel for the Complainant, on the Complaint itself, the name of Opposite Party No.2 was ordered to be deleted from the array of Opposite Parties, vide order dated 19.08.2015.

 

4.      Opposite Party No.1 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that the Complainant No.1 paid the initial premium of Rs.91,210/- by way of a Cheque dated 07.10.2011 in favour of the Opposite Party and drawn on HDFC Bank with the signed proposal form. The proposal was accepted on the standard rates based on the information provided and a Policy was issued bearing No. 005157617 dated 13.10.2011. The said policy was delivered at the mailing address of the Proposer (Complainant No.1) on 23.10.2011 through Blue Dart Courier. While admitting the receipt of the various representations/requests of the Complainant for cancellation of the subject policy and refund of the premium amount, Opposite Party No.1 has asserted that the same was/were declined by it being beyond the free look in period of 15 days provided in the terms & conditions for return of the subject policy. Denying all other allegations Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.      The Complainant also filed rebuttal by way of affidavit to the written statement filed by the Opposite Party No.1, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Party.1 have been controverted.

 

6.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

7.      We have heard the learned Counsel for the contesting parties and have also perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides. 

 

8.      It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the Complainants that the Complainant No.1 had purchased the insurance policy, in question, from Birla Sun Life Insurance Company, whose Agent (OP No.3) told him to purchase the said policy, to get redeem a previous policy taken by him from TATA AIG, and on redemption, the premium amount of the policy, in question, would be refunded to him. Believing such a statement, the Complainant No.1 purchased the policy, in question, but later he came to know that there was no such condition. The Complainant No.1 was least interested in purchasing the policy in question, but on account of the aforesaid misleading statement, he had to purchase the present policy, in order to redeem his policy of TATA AIG. After coming to know the factual position, when the Complainant No.1 approached and requested the Opposite Party No.1 to cancel his policy and return his initial deposit of Rs.91,217/-, the Opposite Party No.1 did not pay any heed to his request, which led to the filing of the present Complaint before this Forum.

 

9.      The Opposite Party No.1 has taken the stand of free look period, duly mentioned in the Welcome letter (Pg. No. 44 of the paper book), which reads as under:-

 

“We request you to go through your policy in detail and check the accuracy of information provided in the policy. You have the option to cancel your policy within 15 calendar days from receipt of this policy document by giving us, in writing, the reason for your objection. We will cancel the policy and return all the premiums paid by you provided your written notice for cancellation, together with the entire policy contract, has been received by us at any of our branches/ Head Offices within the specified timeframe and we have not received any claim intimation. We reserve the right to reduce the amount of the refund by expenditure incurred by us in issuing your policy and as permitted by applicable IRDA regulations.”

 

 

10.      A perusal of the proposal form, duly signed by the Complainants, makes it abundantly clear that Complainant No.1 had paid the first premium of Rs.91,210/- on 07.10.2011, vide Cheque No.245339 dated 07.10.2011, drawn on HDFC Bank. In response thereto the Opposite Party No.1 issued policy document on 13.10.2011, which, was delivered to the mailing address of the Proposer (Complainant No.1) as per the case of the Opposite Party No.1 (Pg.95 of the paper-book). The 15 days of free look in period lapsed on 07.11.2011. However, the Complainants have miserably failed to place on record any such evidence or document to substantiate the fact that after the receipt of the aforesaid policy document, they opted for the free look clause mentioned in the welcome letter sent by the Opposite Party No.1 along with the policy document. It can, therefore, be inferred that the Complainants did not approach the Opposite Party No.1 under the free look period for cancellation of the policy in question.

 

11.      In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Complaint merits dismissal, on the ground that the Complainants were allowed a free look period of 15 days for seeking cancellation of the insurance policy, but they never approached under the said free look period and therefore the policy terms and conditions became final and binding in between the parties. In this view of the matter, the complainants cannot wriggle out of the terms and conditions of the policy and ask for the refund of the amount which is beyond the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 

 

12.      For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any shred of evidence to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party No.1. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.    

 

13.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

Announced

14^th December, 2015                                            

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER