DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Complaint Case No: 34 of 2012]

Prem Chand #2165/2, Sector 45C, Chandigarh.

                                                                   ---Complainant.

Versus

1.                 Branch Office at – Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO 141-142, 2nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

2.                 Head Office at – Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Company Limited – through its Directors Kotak Infiniti, 5^th Floor, Zone 2, Bldg No.21, Infinity Park, Opposite Western Express Highway, Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg, Malad (E), Mumbai 400097.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Harsh Manocha, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the OPs.­

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Prem Chand, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for the following reliefs against the Opposite parties :-

i)                   to refund a sum of Rs.20,000/- paid by him as premium for purchase of the policy;

ii)                to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; and

iii)              to pay Rs.8,000/- as litigation charges.

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased an Insurance Policy from the opposite parties and paid premium of Rs.20,000/- vide cheque dated 11.2.2011. It has been pleaded that despite the fact that the premium was paid, he did not receive the policy, therefore, he requested the opposite parties for refund of the amount paid by him but to no effect. 

                   According to the complainant, failure to refund the premium amounts, in such circumstances, amounts to deficiency in service.  In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed. 

3.                           Notice of this complaint was given to the opposite parties.  Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of the opposite parties on 19.3.2012. Thereafter the case was adjourned thrice for filing reply and evidence by the opposite parties but they failed to do so despite the fact that costs were also imposed upon them.  In these circumstances, vide order dated 11.6.2012, defence of the opposite parties was struck off.

4.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.

5.                           The case of the complainant is that despite the fact that he paid a premium of Rs.20,000/- to the opposite parties for the purchase of the insurance policy, the said policy was not issued in his favour.  Therefore, he requested the opposite parties for refund of the premium but the same was not refunded to him, which amounts to deficiency in service.  The averments made by the complainant are supported by his duly sworn affidavit.   The complainant has also placed on record a copy of letter dated 5.3.2011 written by him to the opposite parties  wherein he has specifically mentioned that though he has received another policy No.02228898, but he has not received the policy No.02238286, alleged to have been issued in his favour.  He also mentioned in this letter that the terms and conditions of the policy as received in Policy No. 02228898, are not acceptable to him and, therefore, he requested for refund of the premium paid by him against both these policies.  In this letter he has categorically mentioned that he has not received policy No.02238286.

6.                           On the other hand in the reply given by the opposite parties vide letter dated 6.6.2011, a copy of which is on the record, it has been mentioned that the policy has been issued in accordance with the requirement and as per the proposal form duly signed by the complainant.  However, no date of issuance of the policy has been mentioned in the said letter. Thus, there is nothing on record to show that the policy in question was actually sent to the complainant and the same was received by him.  Hence, the averments made in the complaint, which are supported by duly sworn affidavit of the complainant, goes un-rebutted.   In these circumstances, the failure on the part of the opposite parties to refund the premium paid by the complainant amounts to deficiency in service.    

7.                           In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to -

i)                   refund Rs.20,000/- to the complainant, being the premium paid by him for purchase of the policy;

 (ii)    pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;

(iii)   pay Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

8.                           This order be complied with by opposite parties jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) above shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of order till actual payment to the complainant, besides payment of litigation costs.

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

Announced

13.07.2012.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

hg