DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Ranjit Singh s/o Sh. Gurmukh Singh r/o H.No.59, Phase-6, Mohali.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

Birla Sun Life Insurance India, Branch Office, SCO No.149-150, Ground Floor, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Party

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Complainant in person

                        Sh. Nitin Thatai, Counsel for the OP.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Ranjit Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs :-

i)       to refund the total amount of Rs.1,20,000/- less Rs.86,896.47 alongwith simple interest.

ii)      to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that on the allurement of the Company Executive of the opposite party, namely Sh. Puneet Arora, he took two life insurance policies  bearing policy No.002912109 and 002942532 in the name of his minor daughter namely Sukhranjan Kaur.  Both the policies were having annual premium of Rs.20,000/- each for which he gave the cheques on 21.5.2009 and 28.5.2009 respectively.

                   According to the complainant, after more than a month he received two booklets of the policies and came to know that that the term of the policies was mentioned as 15 years and 20 years respectively.  It has been averred that he went to the office of the opposite party and told that he could not afford to run the policies for such a long term.  Thereafter, the complainant was informed that the lock-in period was three years and the policies can be discontinued thereafter.  It has further been averred that after the said period of three years, he submitted the surrender form.  However, the complainant was surprised to find that only the amount of Rs.47,199.71 and Rs.39,696.76 (totaling Rs.86,896.43), in respect of both the policies was returned to him, instead of the deposited amount of Rs.1,20,000/-. According to the complainant, the aforesaid act of the opposite party is not only against the IRDA Rules but also amounts to deficiency in service on its part.

                   In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           In its written statement the opposite party admitted that the policies in questions were issued to the complainant.  However, it has been averred that the same were issued on the basis of two proposals/applications dated 20.5.2009 and 27.5.2009.  It has been pleaded that the policy documents were delivered to the complainant and if he had any grievance he should have returned the same within the 15 days period.  It has been denied that the complainant ever visited its office or submitted any complaint.  It has been admitted that the complainant surrendered both the policies in the month of June 2012 and received the surrender value to the tune of Rs.86,896.43.  It has been pleaded once the complainant has received the surrender value, as per the terms and conditions of the policies, he cannot ask for the premium after the termination of the policies.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made

4.                           We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for the opposite party and have gone through the documents on record.

5.                           It is the admitted case of the parties that the policy documents were received by the complainant.  It has been argued by the ld. Counsel for the opposite party that the said policy documents were accompanied by a forwarding letter wherein it was mentioned that if the complainant is not agreeable to any of the clauses of the policy, he can opt for cancellation of the policy within 15 days from the receipt of the policy documents. Admittedly, the said option was not exercised by the complainant within the stipulated period.   Ultimately, the complainant agreed to receive the surrender value of the policy after expiry of three years. 

6.                           Admittedly, the complainant had paid premium for three years and thereafter opted for surrender of the policies.  The complainant received the surrender value amounting to Rs.47,199.71 and Rs.39,696.76 (totaling Rs.86,896.43) in respect of both the policies.  According to the ld. Counsel for the opposite party, the said surrender value has been given as per terms and conditions of the policy documents, already sent to the complainant.  It is not the case of the complainant that the surrender value has not been given in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy documents. The case of the complainant is that he had paid the total premium of Rs.1,20,000/- in respect of both the policies but he was given the surrender value of Rs.86,896.43 only.  However, the complainant has failed to adduce any evidence to the effect that he was entitled to the refund of the full premium amount.  Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we are of the opinion that the amount refunded to the complainant was fully in consonance with the terms and conditions of the policy.  Hence, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint deserves dismissal.

7.                           In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 

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

Announced

17.01.2013.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER