CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/411/12

          Date of Institution:-    25.10.2012

          Order Reserved on:- 02.05.2024

                   Date of Decision:-      25.07.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Asma Khan W/o Sh. Sameer Sualeh

R/o.9814, GaliZamirwali, NawabGanj,

Delhi - 110006

Presently At:

H. No. E-243, Fourth Floor,

ShaheenBagh, AbulFazal

Enclave Part 2, Okhla, Jamia

Nagar, New Delhi - 110025

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

The Branch Manager

Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd.

Office At 20, Community Center,

1^st& 2^nd Floor, East of Kailash,

New Delhi – 110065

The Director/Manager,

Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd.

Regd. Office at:- One IndiabullCenre,

Tower 1, 15^th and 16^th Floor,

Jupiter Mill Compound,

841, SenapatiBapatMarg,

Elphinstone Road, Mumbai – 400013        …..Opposite Parties

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thather insurance policy bearing no.0008534434 was completed on 30.01.2009. The said policy was renewed thrice by
   OP-1. In September, 2010, she went to the office of OP-1 to take the amount of the policy where Ms. Ruby alias Palak i.e. Advisor with code no.AZ5794 contacted her and offered her to invest Rs.1 lakh as one time investment in insurance policy with assured return of 10% upon which she agreed and purchased the policy bearing no.004495394 dated 08.11.2010 from OP-1 by paying Rs.1 lakh on the advice of advisor. The formalities were completed when it was pointed by her towards 20 years clause mentioned in the papers send by her to the advisor who told her that this is a formality and assured that policy will be matured in one year. No one approached her after one year upon which she went to the office of OP-1 where she was told that her policy will mature in 20 years and 10% of total premium amount will be given by her before the maturity of the said policy. The Branch Manager also gave the said reply. She contacted the advisor who told that she has no concern after giving the policy and disconnected the call. She realised that she has been cheated and misguided to grab the money. On 25.01.2012, she sent a mail to OP-1 to refund the amount but in turn they demanded Rs.104000.69/- to restore the policy as same has been lapsed. The OPs have sold a 20 year term policy by saying it to be one year term policy and thereby she has been cheated. Hence, this complaint.

2. The OPs have filed the joint reply with the averments that Sh. KisalayKartikey is the AR of the OP-1. The complainant has raised allegations of fraud and cheating against the advisor and said allegations cannot be decided by this Commission. The complainant has submitted an application no.41626062 dated 21.10.2010 for issuance of Bachat Endowment Plan in her name for annual premium of Rs.1,10,000/- with sum insured of Rs.1546740/- upon which policy no.004495394 dated 31.10.2010 was issued to the complainant and sent on 08.11.2010 through Blue Dart courier at the address mentioned in the proposal form. The features of the policies were disclosed to the complainant and who thereafter applied for the policy. The policy holder is given an option of free look period of 15 days through a welcome letter to report any discrepancy in the policy and policy holder can request for change in plan or for cancellation of policy in case he/she is not satisfied with the policy. The documents were supplied to the complainant on 11.11.2011 through welcome letter but complainant did not avail free look option. The policy cannot be cancelled after statutory free look period of 15 days from the receipt date of policy.

3. The complainant is not only highly educated lady but also have good source of income so there is no question of any inducementby the insurance advisor. It is wrong that complainant was compelled to understand that policy was for one year instead of 20 year. The allegations against the OPs are wrong and denied.

4. The complainant has filed the rejoinderwherein she has reiterated the stand taken in the complaint and denied the averments made in the written statement.

5. The parties were directed to lead the evidence.

6. The complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidenceand corroborated the version of complaint and placed reliance on the documents annexed with the complaint.

7.  TheOP has filed the affidavit ofSh.KisalayKartikey, in evidence and corroborated the version of written statement and placed reliance on the documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-4.

8. The parties to the complaint did not turn up to address the arguments. The consumer complaint pertains to year 2012 so it was reserved for orders as written submissions of the parties are on record.

9. We have perused the entire material on record.

10. The perusal of the Annexure-OP2 filed by the OPs shows that complainant has filled the application form for the issuance of Bachat Endowment Plan for sum insured of Rs.15,46,740/- with the premium of Rs.10,000/- p.a. The application bears the signature of the complainant. The complainant has not denied her signatures on the form. She is bound by the details given in the application form once signatures are admitted and thereafter OPs have issued the policy bearing no.004495394 dated 31.10.2010 to the complainant.

11. The complainant has levelled the allegations against insurance advisor that she has been mislead and cheated by her by saying that policy is for a period of one year whereas policy was for 20 years though this allegation is denied by OPs.

12. The detailed evidence is required in order to determinethe allegations of cheating and fraud. The consumer complaints in the Commission are decided on the basis of evidence filed by way of an affidavit in a summary manner so such allegations cannot be decided by this Commission.

13. The OPs have issued a welcome letter Ex.CW1/A i.e. Annexure-A filed by the complainant to the complainant. The letter was sent at the address given in the application form. The address given in Ex.CW1/A is the same as given in the application form Annexure-OP2. The letter was sent by the OPs at the correct address so there is a presumption that letter must have been received by the addressee. The OPs have discharged their duties by sending a letter at the correct address to the complainant. The delivery is presumed under section 27 of General Clauses Act.

14. The complainant did not exercise free look option for the cancellation of the policy within the 15 days from the date of receipt of letter Ex.CW1/A meaning thereby that complainant has agreed with the terms and conditions of the policy.  Support is drawn from 1^stappeal no.79/2011 titled as Ashok Kumar vs M/s Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Pvt. Ltd. &Ors. decided by Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Chandigarh.

15. The complainant is bound by terms and conditions of the policy once she has failed to exercise the free look option within 15 days from the date of receipt of policy. The complainant has not exercised the option so no deficiency of service can be found on the part of OPs if amount is not refunded.

16. In view of above discussion, the complainant has failed to substantiate the allegations as set out in the complaint. No deficiency of service is found on the part of OPs and accordingly the complaint is dismissed.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 25.07.2024.