DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 237 of 10.6.2016

                                      Decided on:   29.10.2020

Harnek Singh Khural, resident of H.No.113 G, Gobind Nagar, Model Town, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., Office: One Indiabulls Centre, Tower 1, 15 & 16^th floor, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013 through its Senior Manager.
2. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd.,SCF-33, First Floor, Above State Bank of Patiala Leela Bhawan Market, Patiala through its Branch Manager.
3. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd.,Regd.Office:One Indiabulls Centre, Tower 1, 15 & 16^th floor, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013 through its Director.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ARGUED BY

                                      Smt.Kusum Sood,Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Amit Kumar Bedi,Advocate, counsel for OPs.        

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Sh.Harnek Singh  (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd. and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. The brief facts of the case  are that the complainant received a phone call from one Manjit Singh, Fund Manager, ICICI on 30.9.2011 with regard to the status of the older policies invested with the OPs.The representative of the OPs assured through that phone call that the policies of the OPs were going in losses and the same could be recovered alongwith due bonus amount.The caller further advised the complainant that for the recovery of all the due amounts a bank account was required to be opened.
3. It is averred that one of the representative of the OPs visited the complainant on 25.1.2012 and got a cheque No.177786 dated 25.1.2012 for an amount of Rs.75,276.53 in the name of Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd. The complainant received a policy bearing No.005350482 of Birla Sun Life.
4. It is averred that the complainant received another phone call from the OPs that the cheque amount was not appropriate as at least an amount of Rs.one lac was required to be deposited in the newly opened bank account in order to facilitate the procedure for the encashment of the policies. At this the complainant issued another cheque bearing No.177787 dated 10.3.2012 for an amount of Rs.99,994/- but he got shock when he received a new policy bearing No.005453719 under the BSLI Bachat Endowment Plan. It is averred that he never opted for new policy of the OPs.
5.  It is further averred that when the complainant visited the office of the OPs to get the details of his deposits and also for the refund of the same, he was informed that his money had been invested in such schemes that he could get the refund of the same only after the expiry of five years. Aggrieved and harassed on the non receipt of his dues, the complainant wrote so many letters to the various authorities of the OPs. He also made complaint regarding mis selling of policies repeatedly. However, the OPs rejected the request of the complainant vide their letter dated 25.4.2016 stating therein that the policies of the complainant had elapsed as he had failed to complete the requirements and as such no amount is pending with the OPs.
6. It is averred that the complainant has been misled by the agents of the OPs. For the unethical actions of the agents, the OPs are liable to compensate the complainant. The non refund of the amount deposited by the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.They also indulged in unfair trade practice. All these things caused intense harassment and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer that the complaint be accepted by giving directions to the OPs to refund the original amount of Rs.1,75,270/- to the complainant alongwith interest @24% per annum from the date of its deposits till realization, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as damaged on account of mental agony, harassment and monetary loss suffered by the complainant.
7. Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as no cause of action ever arose in favor of the complainant; that the present complaint is an afterthought and has been filed with the ulterior motive to harass and humiliate the OPs; that the contentions of the complaint are false and frivolous; that the complaint is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed.
8. On merits, it is submitted that the OPs or any of its agent/advisor never approached the complainant for purchasing life insurance policies and it was the complainant who showed his willingness to get life insurance policies on the life of Master Sahib Preet Singh Khural and submitted proposal/applications dated 28.1.2012 and 10.3.2012 for the purchase of “BSLIC Bachat Endowment Plans-Term 20 pay 20” for the assured. The proposals were accepted on the standard rates, based on the information provided by the LA and consequently two policies were issued bearing Nos.005350482 dated 31.1.2012 and 005453719 dated 25.3.2012 and the same have been lapsed w.e.f.January and March,2013 but the present complaint has been filed in June,2016 i.e. after two years of lapsation of the policies. Hence the present complaint is palpably barred by limitation.
9. It is further submitted that the complainant was very well aware of all the terms and conditions of the policies before applying and opting for the same.It is further  mentioned that if the complainant did not want to invest in insurance policies then when  he has received the  documents and found it to be insurance policies, he could have immediately exercised the option of refund with “15 days Free Look-in-Period”.It is further submitted that all the letters/complaints written by the complainant have been suitably replied by the OPs.
10. It is alleged that from the documents signed and submitted by the complainant, it is apparent that he had invested in insurance policies for getting life cover upon the life of Master Sahib Preet Singh Khural and the OPs issued the insurance policies for which the complainant has applied. The present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious besides being devoid of any merits and has been filed with a view to malign the credential & reputation of the OPs. There is no deficiency in service on the OPs.  The OPs denied all other averments made in the complaint and have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
11. In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence.
12. On the other hand, the OPs tendered  affidavit Ex.OPA of MS Kshama Priyadarshini, Chief Manager (Legal)  alongwith documents Exs.OP1 copy of authority letter, Ex.OP2 copy of proposal form,Ex.OP3, copy of proposal form, Ex.OP5 copy of letter, Ex.OP6 reply.

Here it may be stated that while tendering these documents, the ld. counsel for the OPs also made the statement that Ex.OP4 is not traceable at this moment and as such the same is not being tendered and closed the evidence.No document in additional evidence has been lead by the OPs.

13. The complainant filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.
14. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is senior citizen. The ld. counsel for the complainant further argued that the complainant was having policies with ICICI and he received a telephonic calls that the policies of the OPs were going in losses and the same could be recovered alongwith due bonus amount for which a bank account was required to be opened.
15. The ld. counsel further argued that thereafter representative of the OPs visited the complainant on 25.1.2012 and got issued cheque of Rs.75276.53 and the complainant received a policy of  Birla Sun Life . The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant received another phone call from the representative of the OPs that the cheque amount  was not appropriate and got issued another cheque for an amount of Rs.99,994/- dated 10.3.2012  and the complainant got  a shock when he received another policy of the OPs.
16. The ld. counsel further argued that when the complainant did not receive any phone calls, he visited the office of the OPs to get the details of the deposited amounts and for the refund of the same but he was informed that he could get the refund after five years.The ld. counsel further argued that no transaction account has been opened in the name of the complainant. The ld. counsel further argued that as fraud was committed upon the complainant, he requested the OPs to transfer the amount, but the same was rejected. The ld. counsel has cited judgment Hardial Singh Vs. Aegon Religate Life Insurance, passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab Chandigarh in First Appeal No.998 of 2013.
17. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant opted for policies himself and he only deposited one installment and no other installment was deposited by him.The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant himself filed proposal forms and he was sent terms and conditions alongwith the policies. The ld. counsel further argued that a Welcome letter was also sent to the complainant in which 15 days were given to the complainant to accept or reject the policies. The ld. counsel further argued that after 15 days the complainant never rejected the policies. The ld. counsel further argued that this complaint is time barred as policies were lapsed in the year 2013 and the complaint was filed in 2016. The ld. counsel for the OPs further argued that now the amount has been forfeited  as such the complaint be dismissed.
18. To prove his case, the complainant  has tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA and he deposed as per the complaint .He has also exhibited documents on the file.Ex.C1 is a letter a letter dated 25.4.2016 written by the OPs to the complainant. It is mentioned that “ The cash surrender value was nil in these policies, hence no refund amount shall be paid to the complainant”.Ex.C2 is a letter written by the complainant to Lokpal of the office of insurance, Chandigarh against the OPs. Ex.C3 is a policy issued by the OPs to Sh.Harnek Singh Khural. This was to mature on 31.1.2032 and the installment premium was Rs.75,276.53. The another policy,Ex.C4 is also issued in the name of Harnek Singh Khural. This policy was to mature on 25.3.2032 and the installment premium was Rs.99.994.36. Ex.C5 is the letter written to the Manager of OPs’ company by the complainant regarding misguidance of insurance company.
19. On behalf of the OPs Ms. Kshama Priyadarshini,Chief Manager of OPs tendered affidavit, his Ex.OPA alongwith documents and has deposed as per written statement.Ex.OP2 is the proposal form filed by the complainant. This proposal form is dated 29.1.2012 issued by the OPs’ company. It is mentioned in note No.5 that, ‘For application under consideration, the insurance cover shall commence after the said application form for insurance has been examined and accepted by BSLI; this shall be communicated separately  to the complainant’ and there is no evidence to prove that they after the acceptance of the proposal communicate the same to the complainant.Ex.OP6 is a letter written by the OPs to the complainant. It is stated that they cannot cancel the policies of the complainant and hope that the complainant will reconsider his decision and will opt to maintain the policies and this letter is dated 25.2.2016 and the complaint was filed on 10.6.2016. So the complaint is well within limitation as last correspondence was received on 25.2.2016.Ex.OP3 is the another proposal form filed by the complainant.
20. The most important document i.e. terms and conditions of both the insurance policies have not been filed by the OPs on the file. So it is not clear that what exactly were  the  terms and conditions of the policies in dispute. The ld. counsel for the OPs argued that it was for the complainant to prove the terms and conditions but this was the duty of the OPs to file all the terms and conditions of the insurance policies as well as welcome letter on the file as the ld. counsel has argued that welcome letter was also sent to the complainant and 15 days were given to him to accept or reject the insurance policies. This document is also an important document which the OPs have  not proved in evidence. So the OPs have themselves failed to prove the terms and conditions of both the policies and also they have failed to prove welcome letter on the file.
21. Ex.C5 is also the letter written by the complainant to OPs’ Manager. It has been requested that the amount be refunded as he was not aware of the policies and terms.
22. So it is clear that the complainant has requested OPs to refund his amount as he was not interested to carry on with the policies. As no terms and conditions have been proved on file so no findings can be given on the terms and conditions as pleaded by the OPs in their written statement.
23. In view of our aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the complainant has deposited Rs.75,276.53 on 25.1.2012 and Rs.99.994.36 on 10.3.2012. Accordingly the complaint is accepted and the OPs are directed to refund Rs.1,75,270.89 (rounded off Rs.1,75,270/-) to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of deposits till payment within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant.  

ANNOUNCED

DATED:29.10.2020

                                       Vinod Kumar Gulati             Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                         Member                                     President