BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.179 of 2015
Date of Instt. 29.04.2015
Date of Decision :30.05.2016
Jai Kohli son of Late Mr.Prof.V.K.Kohli R/o 38, Tagore Park, Professors Colony, Jalandhar-144008.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, One Indiabulls Centre, Tower-1, 16th Floor, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Senapati Bapath Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013 through its Chief Operating Officer.
2. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, 23-24, Second Floor, Eh-197, City Square Building, Civil Lines, Near Kesar Petrol Pump, Jalandhar-144001 through its Manager.
3. Mohit Kumar, Sales Person, Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., 23-24, Second Floor, Eh-197, City Square Building, Civil Lines, Near Kesar Petrol Pump, Jalandhar-144001.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Rajinder Narula Adv., counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Prince Tayal Adv., counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2.
OP No.3 exparte.
Order
Bhupinder Singh (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant obtained two insurance policies i.e. policy bearing No.6091953 on payment of premium of Rs.99,496.86/- and policy bearing No.6145342 on payment of Rs.44,998/-. Complainant submitted that he obtained these polices as single premium plan and the complainant was assured by OP No.3 that the complainant will get, after completion of five years, approximately double amount of the principal amount under both the policies alongwith bonus and free gift like gold coin after three months from the initiation of the policy. Complainant received the policies and came to know that the same were not single premium plans rather annual premium frequency plan for 20 years. The complainant was not in such economic position to pay premium annually. OP has issued wrong policies to the complainant. The complainant submitted that he approached OP No.3 sale man of the policy who assured the complainant that he would get the correct policies after some time but OPs neither sent him the single premium plan/policies nor refund the amount of premium paid by the complainant. In this regard, the complainant also sent letters through email to the OPs and also served legal notice dated 29.12.2014 upon the OPs but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to return the premium amounts of the policies alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written reply pleading that in order to obtain the policies, the complainant filled in and signed two proposal forms dated 24.4.2013 and 11.6.2013 for the purchase of “BSLI Bachat Money Plans” in which it has been mentioned that the policy term is for 20 years and the premium payment term is also 20 years. The premium payment frequency is yearly and the amount of premium is Rs.99,496.86/- for the first policy and for the second policy in the proposal form it has been mentioned that the policy term is 20 years, premium payment term is also 20 years, premium payment frequency is yearly and the amount of premium is Rs.44,998.04/-. The OP accepted these proposal forms and issued policies bearing No.006091953 dated 29.4.2013 and policy bearing No.006145342 dated 21.6.2013 on the basis of proposal forms dated 24.4.2013 and 11.6.2013 respectively. The policy documents were duly received by the complainant in the year 2013 but he never applied for cancellation of the policies within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents. Complainant did not pay the second premium which was due payable by 29.4.2014 and 21.6.2014 and after a grace period of one month, the policies lapsed. As such, the complainant is not entitled to refund of the premium amount as the OPs have covered the life risk period of the complainant for one year during the subsistence of the policy. OPs No.1 & 2 denied other material averments of the complainant.
3. Notice of this complaint was given to the OP No.3 but nobody has turned-up despite service and as such it was proceeded against exparte.
4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainants has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.10 and closed evidence.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP6 and closed evidence.
6. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant obtained two insurance policies i.e. policy bearing No.6091953 on payment of premium of Rs.99,496.86/- and policy bearing No.6145342 on payment of Rs.44,998/-. Complainant submitted that he obtained these polices as single premium plan and the complainant was assured by OP No.3 that the complainant will get, after completion of five years, approximately double amount of the principal amount under both the policies alongwith bonus and free gift like gold coin after three months from the initiation of the policy. Complainant received the policies and came to know that the same were not single premium plan rather annual premium frequency plan for 20 years. The complainant was not in such economic position to pay premium annually. OP has issued wrong policies to the complainant. The complainant submitted that he approached OP No.3 sales man of the policies who assured the complainant that he would get the correct policies after some time but OPs neither sent him the single premium plan/policy nor refund the amount of premium paid by the complainant. In this regard, the complainant also sent letters through email to the OPs i.e. letter dated Ex.C4 12.10.2013 and Ex.C5 dated 23.1.2014. Complainant also served legal notice dated 29.12.2014 Ex.C7 upon the OPs but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.
8. Whereas the case of the OPs No.1 & 2 is that in order to obtain the policies, the complainant filled in and signed two proposal forms dated 24.4.2013 and 11.6.2013 Ex.O2 and Ex.O3 respectively for the purchase of “BSLI Bachat Money Plans” in which it has been categorically mentioned in column No.8 that the policy term is for 20 years and the premium payment term is also 20 years. The premium payment frequency is yearly and the amount of premium is Rs.99,496.86/- for the first policy. For the second policy in the proposal form Ex.OP3 it has been categorically mentioned that the policy term is 20 years, premium payment term is also 20 years, premium payment frequency is yearly and the amount of premium is Rs.44,998.04/-. The OP accepted these proposal forms and issued policies bearing No.006091953 dated 29.4.2013 and policy bearing No.006145342 dated 21.6.2013 on the basis of proposal forms dated 24.4.2013 and 11.6.2013 respectively. The policies document were duly received by the complainant in the year 2013 but he never applied for cancellation of the policies within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents. Complainant did not pay the second premium which was due payable by 29.4.2014 and 21.6.2014 respectively and after a grace period of one month, the policies lapsed. As such, the complainant is not entitled to refund of the premium amount as the OPs have covered the life risk period of the complainant for one year during the subsistence of the policy. The complainant sent letters Ex.C4 dated 12.10.2013 and letter Ex.C5 dated 23.1.2014 for the cancellation of the policy and the complainant was informed that he did not avail the option of cancellation of the policy within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of policy documents, so his policies could not be cancelled. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 & 2 submitted there there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2 qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that in order to obtain the aforesaid two policies, the complainant filled in and signed the proposal forms Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP3 respectively in which it has been categorically mentioned that the term of the policy is 20 years and premium payment term is also 20 years. The amount of premium is mentioned and the frequency of payment of premium is also mentioned yearly/annually. On the basis of these proposal forms, the OPs issued policies bearing No.006091953 dated 29.4.2013 and policy bearing No.006145342 dated 21.6.2013 which were duly received by the complainant. The complainant could not produce any evidence accept his own bald statement that the policies obtained by the complainant were single premium policies. The complainant himself admitted that he received the policies within one month from the date of issue. The complainant came to know about the terms and conditions of the policy when he received the policies documents. The complainant had option to get the policies cancelled within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents if he was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy but complainant did not apply for cancellation of the policy within free look period i.e. 15 days from the date of receipt of policy documents. The complainant was duly intimated by the OP that he had free look period for the cancellation of the policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents if he was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy. Thereafter, the complainant did not pay the second premium which was due payable on 29.4.2014 and 21.6.2014 respectively and after a grace period of one month, the aforesaid policies lapsed on 29.5.2014 and 21.7.2014 respectively. The complainant never applied for revival/restoration of the policies. The OP has covered the life risk of the complainant under the aforesaid policies for one year. As such, complainant is not entitled to any refund of the premium paid by him to the OP under the policies.
10. Resultantly, we hold that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant. As such, this complaint is without merit and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh
30.05.2016 Member President
