Haryana

Sonipat

CC/101/2015

SMT. OMPATI W/O RAGHBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

C.E.O. RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

PARVEEN TYAGI

19 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

             

 

                             Complaint No.101 of 2015

                             Instituted on:25.03.2015

                             Date of order:21.10.2015

 

Smt. Om Pati wife of Raghbir Singh, r/o village Rathdhana, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.       

Versus

 

1.CEO Reliance Life Insurance Co. Navi Mumbai, H-Block, Ist Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Mumbai.

2.Reliance Life Co. Ltd. City Centre, Ist Floor, IB College, GT road, Panipat service effected through Branch office Reliance Life Ins. Co., Subhash Chowk, Sonepat through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Parveen Tyagi, Advocate for Complainant.

 

 Sh. Joginder Kuhar Advocate for respondents.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President. 

          Prabha Wati-Member.

          D.V. Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint as per complainant are that she had purchased insurance policy form the respondents vide policy no.11339617 under single premium scheme on 7.1.2008 for Rs.5 lacs (one time paid) for a period of five years.  But the respondents accepted Golden Year Plan Regular. Thereafter she visited the office of the respondents that she is not in a position to pay such huge amount to the respondents and does not come under the scheme Golden Year Plan Regular.  The complainant moved an application on 15.1.2008 for refund of amount or to keep the complainant under the scheme Single Premium Plan.  After a gap of five years, the complainant again moved an application on 9.9.2013 and requested the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.5 lacs but of no use and this wrongful act of the respondents have caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant and thus,

she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that in the plan it has been clearly mentioned that the life assured was to make the payment of Rs.5 lacs per annum for policy paying term of 5, with date of commencement as 9.1.2008.  The complainant was well within his right to get the policy cancelled without any deduction within 15 days from the receipt of the policy, but the complainant failed to do so.  The policy was foreclosed on 9.1.2012 and fund value has been generated for Rs.3,01,524.73 paise which has been transferred to customer bank on 11.9.2014.  The allegations regarding deficiency in service on the part of the respondents are false and baseless and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that in the plan it has been clearly mentioned that the life assured was to make the payment of Rs.5 lacs per annum for policy paying term of 5, with date of commencement as 9.1.2008.  The complainant was well within his right to get the policy cancelled without any deduction within 15 days from the receipt of the policy, but the complainant failed to do so.  The policy was foreclosed on 9.1.2012 and fund value has been generated for Rs.3,01,524.73 paise which has been transferred to customer bank on 11.9.2014.  The allegations regarding deficiency in service on the part of the respondents are false and baseless.

          The complainant has placed on record the copy of letters i.e. Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 written to the Branch, Reliance Life Insurance, Panpat and Karnal respectively.  As per document Ex.C1, the policy was issued on 7.1.2008, whereas on 15.1.2008 the complainant wrote a letter to the Branch, Reliance Life Insurance Ltd. Panipat to refund the amoung alongwith interest or to keep the complainant under the scheme Single Premium Plan. It has also been mentioned by the complainant that he is a Govt. Servant and working in Animal Husbandary Department having monthly salary approximately Rs.22000/- and he could not pay yearly premium of Rs.5 lacs to the insurance company. 

          So, keeping in view the above, we find no force in the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel for the respondents because the complainant has filed an application on 15.1.2008 before the respondents requesting therein either to refund the amount alongwith interest or to keep the complainant under the scheme Single Premium Plan, but this application was not responded to by the respondents. Then on 9.9.2013, again the complainant moved another application to the respondents to refund the amount alongwith interest, but it has also not brought any fruitful result for the complainant.

          The complainant invested the amount of Rs.5 lacs with the respondents in the year 2008 and as per the respondents, its fund value was Rs.3,01,524/- in the month of September, 2014 i.e. after 6 years of investment made by the complainant.  In our view, there is some hide and seek on the part of the respondents as they have sold their plan to the complainant by misleading him.  However, in our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if some directions are given to the respondents.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs.five lacs) to the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.  The respondents are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/- (Rs.two thousands) for rendering deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.  One thing is made clear here that the respondents in their written statement has submitted that fund value has been generated for Rs.3,01,524.73 paise which has been transferred to customer bank on 11.9.2014.  If the amount of Rs.3,01,524/- was credited in the complainant’s account by the respondents, in that event, the complainant’s entitlement comes to only Rs.1,98,476/- and qua this amount also, the above said directions will prevail.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy  of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

          File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)           (Nagender Singh)                    Member, DCDRF,             Member, DCDRF        President, DCDRF,

Sonepat.             Sonepat.             Sonepat.

 

ANNOUNCED 21.10.2015