Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/61/2015

Vekeel Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Birla Sun Life - Opp.Party(s)

P.K Sharma

17 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.         :     61 of 11.06.2015

Date of Decision:                    :     17.03.2016

Vakeel Chand S/o Shanti Saroop R/o Kang, PO Bharta Khurd, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar.

                                                                             …Complainant

Versus

1. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, G Corp Tech Park 6^th, Floor, Kasar Wadavali, Ghodbunder Road, Thana – 400601.
2. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Railway Road, Nawanshahr, Through its Branch Manager, Nawanshahr, SBS Nagar.
3. Sub Post Master, Post Office, Aur, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar.
4. Sub Post Master, Post Office, Nawanshahr, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar.

          …Opposite Parties

                             Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH.G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

MS.SUSHMA HANDOO, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.P.K. Sharma, Advocate

For OP-1&2                   :         Sh.M.P. Nayyar, Advocate

For OP No.3&4             :         Sh.Vivek Nidhi Singh, Inspector Posts

 

 

 

ORDER

PER SH.G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.       Complainant,a resident of Village Kang, was desirous of investing money in FDRs, so as to utilize his savings for business and domestic needs as per necessity.  An agent of OP No.1&2 approached complainant for representing that in case he deposits the amounts in FDRs, then he will get interest @9.75 per annum.  Complainant fell into the temptations of that agent employee and handed over five cheques i.e. four of amount of Rs.50,000/- each, but fifth of amount of Rs.60,000/- for deposit in FDR for period of one year.   Instead of investing the amount of Rs.2,60,000/- in FDRs, OP No.1&2 in criminal conspiracy with agent employees got issued five insurance policies, the details of which are given as under:

Sr. No	Policy No.	Name of owner	Name of insured	Premium amount	Maturity date	Last premium payment date
1	006622296	Vakeel Chand	Priyanka	Rs.48501.33 plus service tax of Rs.1455.04 plus Edu. Cess of Rs.43.65	31.10.2094	31.10.2028
2	006622299	Vakeel Chand	Priyanka	Rs.48501.33 plus service tax of Rs.1455.04 plus Edu. Cess of Rs.43.65	31.10.2094	31.10.2028
3	006619320	Vakeel Chand	Amit Kumar	Rs.48501.33 plus service tax of Rs.1455.04 plus Edu. Cess of Rs.43.65	24.11.2087	24.11.2028
4	006622295	Vakeel Chand	Amit Kumar	Rs.48501.33 plus service tax of Rs.1455.04 plus Edu. Cess of Rs.43.65	24.11.2087	31.10.2028
5	006622297	Vakeel Chand	Amit Kumar	Rs.59171.59 plus service tax of Rs.1775.15 plus Edu. Cess of Rs.53.25	31.10.2087	31.10.2028

 Product unique identification number even was allocated to all these policies.  All the above numbered insurance policies except policy No.006619320 were received by complainant on 21.11.2014, but policy No.006619320 was received on 10.12.2014 through registered post.  On such receipt, complainant was astonished to know that amount of Rs.2,60,000/- has been invested in the above referred insurance policies, due to which he will be unable to utilize the invested money for his business and domestic needs.  In fact OP No.1&2 cheated complainant by investing the above referred amount in insurance policies.  After receipt of the afore referred policies, the complainant sent request letters on 24.11.2016 and 26.11.2014, for cancelling the policies, but letter for cancelling the fifth policy bearing No.006619320 was sent on 13.12.2014.  This option was exercised by complainant within 15 days of free look period.  Even, policy documents were sent by complainant to OP No.1&2 through registered posts of 24.11.2014, 26.11.2014 and 13.12.2014.  Thereafter, complainant visited office of Op No.3&4 many times for knowing the date as to when OP No.1&2 received the documents.  OP No.3&4 failed to disclose that fact to complainant.  Despite sending of the request for cancellation of policies, OP No.1&2 has not returned the amount of Rs.2,60,000/- and as such by pleading deficiency in service, refund of Rs.2,60,000/- with interest @9.75% per annum till realization along with damages of tune of Rs.1,00,000/- is claimed.

2.       In joint written statement filed by OP No.1&2, it is pleaded inter alia as if complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no cause of action; complaint is filed by abusing the process of law and even it is claimed that a false story has been created in the complaint for mis-leading this Forum.  In fact complainant, the life assured (referred as proposer) submitted five proposals/applications through AB insurance brokers Pvt. Ltd. with OP No.1&2 for purchase of BSLI Vision Life Income Pay Plans for the benefit of his son Amit Kumar and Daughter Priyanka.  Those proposals were accepted on the standard rates based on the information provided by the proposer.  Thereafter, five policies, the details of which given hereunder were issued:

Name of complainant	Vakeel Chand	Vakeel Chand	Vakeel Chand	Vakeel Chand	Vakeel Chand
Name of Life Insured	Amit Kumar	Priyanka	Amit Kumar	Priyanka	Amit Kumar
Policy No.	006622295	006622296	006622297	006622299	006619320
Application ID	A48935745	A48935746	A49244578	A49815030	A48935594
Application Received date	31.10.2014	31.10.2014	31.10.2014	31.10.2014	28.10.2014
Policy issue date	31.10.2014	31.10.2014	31.10.2014	31.10.2014	24.11.2014
Delivery Date	17.11.2014	21.11.2014	17.11.2014	18.11.2014	06.12.2014
Sum Assured	Rs.5,98,174.	Rs.5,97,888	Rs.729772/-	Rs.597888/-	Rs.598174
Type of Plan	BSLI Vision Life Income Pay Term 15	BSLI Vision Life Income Pay Term 15	BSLI Vision Life Income Pay Term 15	BSLI Vision Life Income Pay Term 15	BSLI Vision Life Income Pay Term 15
Unit Linked/Traditional Type	Traditional Type	Traditional Type	Traditional Type	Traditional Type	Traditional Type
Policy Billing Frequency/Premium Frequency	Annual	Annual	Annual	Annual	Annual
Model Premium	Rs.48501.32	Rs.48501.33	Rs.59171.59	Rs.48501.33	Rs.48501.32
Gross Annual Premium/ Premium installment	Rs.48501.32	Rs.48501.33	Rs.59171.59	Rs.48501.33	Rs.48501.32
Policy Status	Premium Paying	Premium Paying	Premium Paying	Premium Paying	Premium Paying
Service Agent Name	AB Insurance Brokers Pvt	AB Insurance Brokers Pvt	AB Insurance Brokers Pvt	AB Insurance Brokers Pvt	AB Insurance Brokers Pvt
Servicing Agent Code	002533	002533	002533	002533	002533
Tax Certificate	Total Premium paid Rs.50000.00	Total Premium paid Rs.50000.00	Total Premium paid Rs.61000.00	Total Premium paid Rs.50000.00	Total Premium paid Rs.50000.00

 

Before acceptance of proposals submitted by complainant, the contents of the proposals/applications, illustrations and addendum forms were read over and explained to the complainant in the language known to him by the broker.  After due processing of the proposals, the policies were issued.  Sales literature and necessary guidance even was provided to the complainant by the broker.  Complainant signed the declaration alongwith illustration stating that he had read the product brochure and even has understood the values indicated in the illustrations.  Complainant has not exercised the option of cancellation within period of 15 days from the date of receipt of policy documents and as such he is estopped from denying the terms and conditions of the policies.  Act and conduct of the complainant in not returning/surrendering the policies within the given time signifies his acceptance to the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy documents.  Complainant has already availed the benefits of the policies for the period for which he paid the premium and as such he has no legal right to claim the refund and damages.  Vakeel Chand is only the proposer of the policies, but Amit Kumar son of complainant and Priyanka daughter of complainant are the lives assured.  They have not been impleaded as party and as such complaint alleged to bad due to non-joinder of necessary parties.  The policies were purchased through insurer broker for the benefits of son and daughter of the complainant and as such question of playing fraud or of mis-sale of policies under guise of issue of FDRs does not arise.  Admittedly, the premiums referred above were accepted while issuing the policies, but for covering the risk upon life of the assured to extent of Rs.5,98,174/- of Amit Kumar ; Rs.5,97,888/- of Priyanka ; Rs.7,29,772/- of Amit Kumar; Rs.5,97,888/- of Priyanka and Rs.5,98,174/- of Amit Kumar, respectively.  Complainant after lapse of the policy not entitled to seek refund of the premium.  Validity of the contract of insurance virtually has been challenged by complainant by pleading fraud, deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practices and as such the matter involved can be decided by Civil Court after leading of cogent evidence there.  It is claimed that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint, which is based on allegations of fraud, cheating and criminal conspiracy.  Complainant is an educated person, who purchased the policies after going through the contents of documents signed by him.  The amount was never deposited in FDR carrying interest @9.75% per annum.  Rather, complainant himself issued five cheques of different dates for purchasing the policies in question.  Financial capacity of complainant to pay premium of Rs.260000/- was examined by the broking company.  Complainant himself stated as proposer that he is owner of Kapila Medical Store, Nawanshahr and enjoys reputation in the city.  Complainant declared his income about Rs.6,00,000/- per annum, but the worth of his house as Rs.1.10 crore and that of his business Rs.70,00,000/- and of the car as Rs.10,00,000/-.  Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by claiming that as the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and as such the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.       In separate joint written statement filed by OP No.3&4, it is pleaded inter alia as if complaint against these answering Ops not maintainable; complainant has no cause of action and locus standi; complainant estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the complaint; OP No.3&4 has been unnecessarily impleaded by the complainant, despite the fact that complainant has never submitted any written request/complaint for inquiring about the delivery of the submitted speed post articles.  It is claimed that complainant could have easily collected information regarding delivery of speed post articles by applying through proper process.  Speed post article No.EP265409435IN was booked at Nawanshahr sub Post Office (OP No.4) on 13.12.2014 and same was delivered to addressee on 19.12.2014.  The speed post article No.EP269931412IN was booked at Aur, Sub Post Office (OP No.3) on 24.11.2014 and same delivered to addressee on 02.12.2014.  Likewise speed post article No.EP269931338IN was booked with OP-3 on 26.11.2014 and same delivered to addressee on 29.11.2014.  As the speed post articles sent by complainant through OP No.3&4 have been delivered and as such question of payment of compensation by them does not arise.           

4.       Affidavit Ex.CW1 of complainant alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-18 were tendered and thereafter counsel for complainant closed the evidence. 

5.       Affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Aakriti Manocha, Assistant Manager (Legal) of OP No.1&2 tendered along with documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/11 by counsel for OP No.1&2 and thereafter he closed the evidence. 

6.       Sh.Vivek Nidhi Singh, Inspector of Posts Nawanshahr tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.OP3/A alongwith copies of delivery slips Ex.OP3/1 and thereafter he on behalf of OP No.3&4 closed the evidence.

7.       Additional evidence application filed by complainant was allowed vide order of 04.12.2015 and thereafter complainant tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.CW2/A and Ex.CW3/A of Sh.Amit Kumar (son of complainant) and of Ms.Priyanka (daughter of complainant).  After closure of the additional evidence, opportunity to lead rebuttal thereto was granted to OPs, but none of them lead any rebuttal.  

8.       Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties.  Oral arguments of counsel for the parties were heard.  File also carefully perused.

9.       Policies Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 were issued by OP No.1&2 in favour of complainant after submission of application forms Ex.OP1/2, to Ex.OP1/6 by complainant.  These application forms Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/6 contains details of the annual income and the properties as well as business owned by complainant.  All these documents are in English and signed by complainant in English Language.  Signatures of insurance broker as well as of the life insured are also there in English on all these forms.  Declaration of the complainant as proposer also obtained as revealed by copies of the sales illustrations produced on record as Ex.OP1/7 to Ex.OP1/11.  All these declaration even signed by complainant in English.  These declarations also are in English and as such virtually complainant was aware of the language in which the declaration forms and the application forms were submitted by him.  It is not the case of complainant that the declaration forms or the application/proposal forms were blank, when his signatures were obtained on these documents.  Being so allegations of fraud are not borne from the record.  Rather, as per case titled as Grasim Industries Limited Vs Agarwal Steel (2010) 1 SCC 83, when a person signs on a document, then the presumption is qua putting of his signatures by him after accepting the contents thereof.  Proof of fraud or of use of force in obtaining signature of complainant not adduced and as such the above referred documents of declaration forms and application forms to be assumed to be submitted by complainant after knowing the contents thereof. 

10.     Moreover, complainant himself claims to have submitted request for cancellation, the copies of which are produced as Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-10 after reading the contents of the policy and as such complainant acknowledged the terms and conditions of the insurance policies Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 each.  Through Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-10 each, complainant prayed for refund of balance because he claimed to be not satisfied with the policies after reading the contents thereof.  Receipt of the policies in question acknowledged by complainant through Ex.C-6 to Ex.10 and as such virtually complainant exercised option for cancellation of policy within 15 days from receipt of policy documents.  This option through Ex.C-6 to Ex.C10 exercised by complainant as per clauses of “Free Look Period” contained in policies Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 each.  Right of complainant for exercising the option of cancellation of policies was made known to him through welcome letters sent alongwith the policies.  It was after knowing about this right that complainant sent cancellation requests Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-10 and as such virtually complainant himself acknowledged the terms and conditions contained in Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 each.  Rule of estoppel now denudes the complainant from denying the terms and conditions of the policies. 

11.     The parties are bound by the terms of contract of insurance because nothing can be added or subtracted to the terms and conditions of the policy is the settled proposition of law laid in cases of Indo Swift Limited Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd and others IV (2012) CPJ 148 (NC); United India Insurance Company Ltd Vs Harchand Rai Chandan Lal IV (2004) CPJ 15 (SC) and Deokar Exports Pvt. Ltd Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd 1(2009) CPJ 6 (SC).  In view of this also complainant cannot wriggle out of the terms and conditions of Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 because he by acknowledging the terms thereof has exercised option of cancellation through Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-10. 

12.     Whether or not reply with respect to fifth policy submitted through written statement, the question in that respect is not much material because complainant himself claims to have exercised the option of free look period by applying for cancellation within 15 days of receipt of policies. 

13.     Son and daughter  of complainant virtually are the beneficiaries as disclosed by contents of Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5, but they have not been impleaded as parties and as such it is vehemently argued by Sh.MP Nayyar, Advocate that complaint bad due to non-joinder of necessary parties.  However, Vakeel Chand complainant being owner of the these policies sought cancellation of the policies, being not satisfied therewith by exercising option within 15 days period of free look and as such virtually the complaint has been filed for getting that benefit which is available to complainant as per terms and conditions of the contract of insurance.  Amit Kumar, the son and Ms.Priyanka, the daughter of complainant was to get benefit of the policies on maturity of these policies only and as such their impleadment is not essential, particularly when rescission of the contract of insurance sought at early stages as per terms and conditions of the contract of insurance itself.  Moreover, affidavits Ex.CW2/A and Ex.CW3/A of both Amit Kumar and Ms.Priyanka have been tendered in evidence by complainant and as such virtually the relief is claimed through the complaint by divulging them of the facts and circumstances of the case.  Detailed facts supporting contents of the complaint are contained in affidavits Ex.CW2/A and Ex.CW3/A and as such both the beneficiaries virtually has acquiesced in the grant of relief claimed by complainant.  So complaint is not at all bad due to non-joinder of Amit Kumar and Priyanka.

14.     If Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-10, the cancellation requests, not shown to be bearing signatures of anyone, then due to that alone it cannot be inferred that request for such cancellation was not submitted by complainant, particularly when contents of Para No.4 of the complaint; Para No.4 of affidavit Ex.CW1/A of complainant; Para No.4 of affidavit Ex.CW2/A of Amit Kumar and Para No.4 of Affidavit Ex.CW3/A of Priyanka shows as if option for cancellation was exercised by complainant.  Case of OPs is that this option was not exercised within 15 days and that is why rejection of that request for cancellation communicated to complainant through letters Ex.C-15 to Ex.C-18 of date 27.12.2014 each by OPs.  OPs have nowhere mentioned in the written statement or in the evidence as to on which dates the request for cancellation were received, albeit the date of issue of the policies and date of delivery of the policy documents specified in table worked in Para No.5 of the written statement.  However, to the contrary complainant has specifically claimed that the policy documents were received by him on 21.11.2014 and 10.12.2014 as referred above.  So pleadings of OPs qua date of receipt of policy documents by complainant are vague, but those of complainant are specific.  A party who gives specific dates of receipt of policy documents and even produces the documentary proof is to be relied.  So case of complainant fully believable that all the policy documents excepting policy No.06619320 were received by him on 21.11.2014, but documents pertaining to policy No.06619320 were received by him on 10.12.2014.  Even in documents Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-10 mention made by complainant qua receipt of the four policy documents on 21.11.2014, but in Ex.C-6 mention made regarding receipt of policy documents pertaining to policy No.06619320 on 10.12.2014.  So complainant even before filing of the complaint has been specifically claiming and representing OPs as if the policy documents were received by him on 21.11.2014 and 10.12.2014 as referred above.  Consistent stand of complainant proves his case qua date of receipt of policy documents.

15.     After receipt of the four policy documents on 21.11.2014, complainant sent cancellation letter Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-10 on 24/25.11.2014, but after receipt of fifth policy documents on 10.12.2014, he sent cancellation request Ex.C-6 on 12.12.2014 are facts borne from contents of Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-10 as well as by contents of postal receipts Ex.C-11 and information collected from Post Office in the shape of documents Ex.C-12 to Ex.C14 (which are also produced by OP No.3&4 as Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/3). So certainly complainant exercised the option of seeking cancellation within 15 days of receipt of the policy documents and as such rejection of the claim of the complainant qua cancellation of policies through Ex.C-15 to Ex.C-18 is in violation of terms and conditions of the contract.  That amounts to deficiency in service on part of OPs No.1&2, particularly when OPs have not  adduced any evidence (oral or documentary) for proving as to on which date the policy documents were dispatched by them to complainant or as to on which date those were received by complainant.  Even in Ex.C-15 to Ex.C-18, it is not mentioned as to how free look option was not exercised by complainant within 15 days period because the date of receipt of the policy documents and the date of requests submitted by complainant not mentioned in any of these letters.

16.     Ex.C-1, the policy was issued on 24.11.2014, whereas Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5 each were issued on 31.10.2014 is a fact borne from contents of Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5.  No copy of the dispatch register entry maintained by OP No.1&2 has been produced to show as to on which date these policies were dispatched and nor any postal or courier receipt produced to show the date of dispatch and receipt of these policy documents by OP No.1&2.  So best evidence available in this respect with held by OP No.1&2, but complainant has produced the documentary evidence discussed in detail above.  As and when a party withholds the best available evidence, then adverse inference against such party liable to be drawn and by doing so, the case of OP No.1&2 qua delivery dates of the policy documents as mentioned in Para No.5 in tabular form cannot be believed.

17.     Free look period clause stipulated in Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 each and the annexed welcome letters reads as under:-

          “You will have the right to return your policy to us within 15 days (30 days in case the policy issued under the provisions of IRDA guidelines on distance marketing of Insurance Products) from the date of receipt of the policy.  We will refund the premium paid once we receive your written notice of cancellation (along with reasons thereof) together with the original policy documents.  We will deduct proportionate risks premium for the period of cover and expenses incurred by us on medical examination and stamp duty charges while issuing your policy in accordance to IRDA (protection of Policyholders interest) Regulations 2002”

18.     Terms and conditions stipulated in the free look period clause are binding on the parties and nothing can be added or subtracted thereto.  Being so in view of the fact that cancellation requests in writing sent by complainant within 15 days from receipt of the policy documents, OP No.1&2 are bound to refund the paid premium amount after deducting proportionate risk premium for the period of cover and expenses incurred by insurer on medical examination as well as stamp duty charges as per IRDA Regulation of 2002 referred above.  That amount has not been refunded and as such complainant entitled to refund of premium amount minus the proportionate risk premium for the period of cover and expenses incurred as stamp duty charges, while issuing the policy in accordance with IRDA Regulations 2002, referred above.  It is not the case of any of the parties that medical examination of the complainant or of any of the beneficiaries was got conducted by insurer at any time and as such deduction of charges of medical expenses cannot take place. 

19.     Following table will show the details of amounts charged from complainant while issuing policies Ex.C1 to Ex.C-5.

S. No.	Ex. No.	1st Premium Amount Paid by complainant	Service tax amount	Edu. Cess
1	C-1	Rs.48501.32	Rs.1455.04	Rs.43.65
2	C-2	Rs.59171.59	Rs.1775.15	Rs.53.25
3	C-3	Rs.48501.33	Rs.1455.04	Rs.43.65
4	C-4	Rs.48501.33	Rs.1455.04	Rs.43.65
5	C-5	Rs.48501.32	Rs.1455.04	Rs.43.65

         

20.     Only the paid premium amount is refundable because the paid service tax amount and education cess amount goes to the Government Exchequer.  It was on filing of applications Ex.OP-1/2 to Ex.OP-1/6 that the policies Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 issued and as such the policies were issued at instance of complainant.  In view of this the amount of paid service tax and education cess must not be ordered to be refunded to complainant by OP No.1&2.  As the claim for cancellation of policies erroneously rejected by not adhering to the terms and conditions of the policies Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5, through letters Ex.C-15 to Ex.C-18 each of date of 27.12.2014 and as such in view of the illegal withholding of the premium amounts by OP No.1&2, they must pay interest @8% per annum w.e.f. 27.12.2014 on the amounts payable by them to complainant.

21.     Proof of date of birth of Priyanka and Amit Kumar is annexed with the policy documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5 for establishing that date of birth of Priyanka is 03.11.1993, but of Amit Kumar is 12.03.1987.  In para No.1 of this order itself dates of maturity mentioned as 24.11.2087 and 31.10.2094, with last date of premium as 31.10.2028 and 24.11.2028.  This means that on the date of maturity, ages of the beneficiaries Priyanka and Amit Kumar was bound to be of 100 years each.  No one will purchase a policy with maturity date of 100 years and as such the option exercised by complainant for cancellation of the policies within 15 days free look period was for the reasons best suited to the needs of complainant and the beneficiaries.

22.     Submission of representative of OP No.3&4 has force that they have been dragged unnecessarily in this litigation.  It is so because the information sought from OP No.3&4 qua date of delivery of the postal articles dispatched through postal receipts Ex.C-11 could have been obtained by complainant by filing application in that respect with these OPs or he could have sought this information under RTI Act.  Besides, complainant could have called the concerned official of OP No.3&4 with record of date of dispatch of the postal articles and that of delivery of these articles to addressee.  The concerned official of OP No.3&4 could have been summoned as a witness.  No application for getting the requisite information shown to be filed by complainant with OP No.3&4 at any point of time before filing of this complaint on 11.06.2015, but contents of Ex.C-12 to Ex.C-14 each shows as if email detail sought by complainant from OP No.3&4 by getting the complaint registered on 04.07.2015.  Even after getting such details contained in Ex.C-12 to Ex.C-14, claim against OP No.3&4 was not withdrawn by complainant and as such the adamant attitude of complainant in unnecessarily dragging OP No.3&4 in this litigation warrants that complainant should be made to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- at least to these OPs.  If OP No.1&2 has harassed complainant by illegally rejecting the claim for cancellation of policies, then for that OP No.1&2 liable to be burdened with compensation of Rs.15,000/-, but  with litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.   

23.     As a sequel of above observations and findings, the complaint filed by Vakeel Chand is allowed in terms that OPs No.1&2 will refund the received premium amount of Rs.48,501.32 ( Received on policy Ex.C-1), plus Rs.59,171.59 (Received on policy Ex.C-2), plus Rs.48,501.33 (received on policy Ex.C-3), plus Rs.48,501.33 (received on policy Ex.C-4) and Rs.48,501.32 (Received on policy Ex.C-5) with interest @8% per annum w.e.f. 27.12.2014 till payment.  However, while refunding these amounts, OPs No.1&2 will have right to deduct proportionate risk premium for the period of cover and expenses incurred as stamp duty charges while issuing the policies, in accordance with IRDA (Protection of Policyholder interest) Regulation 2002.  Statement of such deductions will be prepared by OPs and sent alongwith the details of the refund amount as ordered through this order. Payments be made after these pointed out deductions within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  Complainant is entitled to compensation for mental harassment and suffering of Rs.15,000/-, but to litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.  Payment of these amounts also be made within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order by OP No.1&2 to complainant.  However, complaint against OP No.3&4 dismissed by directing complainant to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses to OP No.3&4.  These payments be also made by complainant to OP No.3&4 within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.   

24.     File be indexed and consigned to record room.

25.     Let copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated:  17.03.2016

 

  

(Sushma Handoo)                                               (G.K. Dhir)

Member                                                               President