Haryana

Karnal

232/2014

Vakeel Paswan S/o Mani Lal Paswan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

S.C. Koshikish

05 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                               Complaint No.232 of 2014

                                                               Date of instt.: 21.8.2012

                                                               Date of decision:05.05.2016

 

1. Vakeel Paswan son of Shri Mani Lal Paswan.

2. Neelam Devi wife of Shri Vakeel Paswan son of Shri Mani Lal Paswan both residents of Partap Wali Gali, near Vijay Nagar, Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainants.

                                      Vs.

1. The Manager, Birla son Life Insurance Company Limited, SCF 138, Ground Floor, Sector-13 Market, HUDA, Karnal.

2. Shri Vikash son of unknown (agent) of Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, SCF 138, Ground  Floor, Sector-13 Market, HUDA, Karnal. Now at present house no.2020 sector 13, Urban Estate, Karnal.

3. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, SCF 138,Ground Floor, Sector-13 Market, HUDA Karnal, through its Manager.

                                                                  ………… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-         Sh.S.C. Kaushik  Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh. Vikas Bakshi Advocate for the Opposite parties no.1 and 3.

                     Sh. Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for opposite party no.2.

 

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainants u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that on the assurance of opposite party no.2 they invested in Birla Sun Life Insurance Company policies. Policy no.003931786 was obtained in the name of complainant no.1 Vakil Paswan and policy no.003931559 in the name of complainant no.2 Neelam Devi. They paid premiums for three years regularly and invested their amount approximately Rs.51,000/- during those three years with the hope that they would get benefits under the policies after three years as assured by opposite party no.2. After expiry of three years, they approached opposite parties no.1 and 3 for getting payment under the policies, but they were told that the said polices were for 30 years. Thus, they were cheated by opposite parties by mis-representing the facts. They are illiterate, innocent and poor persons. When they raised hue and cry, the opposite parties paid Rs.9750/- to each of them and refused to pay the balance amount. They also got served legal notice dated 30.6.2014, but the same also did not yield any result. In this way, there was clear deficiency in service  on the part of the opposite parties, which caused to them mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. The opposite parties no.1 and 3 filed joint written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainants have no cause of action; that the complainants have not approached this forum with clean hands; that the complaint is false and frivolous; that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint and that the complicated questions of law and facts are involved which can only be decided by Civil Court.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainants submitted proposals for purchase of the insurance policies, which were accepted on the standard rates based on information provided by the complainants and the policies were duly issued in their names. The contents of the proposal, illustrations and the addendum forms were readover and explained to the complainants in Hindi language and they signed the same after admitting all the terms and conditions of the policy. The policy documents delivered to the complainants provided them the period of 15 days called “free look-in-period” within which they could have returned the policies to opposite parties no.1 and 3 by stating the reason thereof, but they did not return the policies within the given time. They themselves surrendered the polices on 12.6.2013 and as per the surrender request, the amount of surrender value was transferred in their savings account through RTGS and intimation of the same was given to them, vide letter dated 19.6.2013. The other allegations made in the complaint have also been denied.

3.                Opposite party no.2 did not file any written statement rather adopted the written statement already filed by the opposite parties no.1 and 3.

4.                In evidence of the complainant, affidavit of Vakil Paswan EX.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C19 have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Aakriti Manocha Ex. OP1&3/A, and documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O8 have been tendered.

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is established that the complainants obtained two life insurance policies from opposite parties no.1 and 3, one in the name of complainant Vakil Paswan and the other in the name of complainant Neelam Devi. Premium for policy of Vakil Paswan was Rs.4508/-, whereas for the policy of Neelam Devi the premium was Rs.4303/-. Admittedly the complainants deposited the premiums regularly for a period of three years. As per the case of the complainants, opposite party no.2 had represented them that each policy was for a period of three years, but the opposite parties have submitted that the term of each policy was 30 years and pay term was 25 years.

8.                It is not the case of the complainants that the policies were not received by them. After receiving the polices they could go through the terms and conditions and if they were not able to read and understand the same properly they could certainly take help of some educated person and could get cancelled the policies within the free look period of 15 days from the date of receiving the policies. Mere allegation of the complainant that opposite party no.2 assured them that the policy term was three years, cannot take the place of proof. Bald affidavit of complainant Vakil Paswan in support of such allegation cannot be taken to the gospel truth and same is not sufficient to establish the allegations. The complainants have produced the copies of the policy information Ex.C7, wherein the policy term has been mentioned as 30 years, pay term as 25 years and guaranteed savings date 25^th policy anniversary. The policy issue date was mentioned as 9.3.2010 and the maturity date was mentioned as 9.3.2040.  In Ex.C8 the first premium receipt also, the term of the policy was mentioned as 30 years. After getting the policy information and receipt regarding deposit of first premium, the complainants could very well come to know about the term of the policy as 30 years. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that they had no knowledge about term of the policy.  The opposite parties have produced the copies of the policy cancellation/surrender form of Neelam Devi and Vakil Paswan as Ex.O1 and Ex.O6 respectively, which go to show that the complainants surrendered their policies on 12.6.2013. When the complainants came to know about the alleged mis-representation on the part of the opposite party no.2 after three years of issuance of the policies, they could initiate the crimination proceedings against the opposite party no.2 for cheating them, but no step was taken by them in that direction. They did not raise even any dispute with opposite parties no.1 to 3 regarding alleged mis-representation by opposite party no.2, rather submitted policy cancellation/surrender form without any objection. Under such circumstances, the complainants have not been able to establish that opposite party no.2  mis-represented them about the term of the  polices as three years instead of 30 years. Opposite parties no.1 and 3 have transferred the surrender value amount in the accounts of the complainant. Therefore, it cannot be said in any manner that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

9.                As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 05.05.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                          President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member