Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/790/2022

TEJWINDER SINGH Gill - Complainant(s)

Versus

CANARA HSBC OBC LIFE INSURANCE - Opp.Party(s)

AVTAR KAMBOJ

05 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/790/2022
Date of Institution	:	06/09/2022
Date of Decision	:	05/01/2024

 

Tejwinder Singh Gill age 36 years son of Sh. Birinder Singh Gill, r/o H.No.8354, Sunny Enclave, Sector 125, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Pb.) at present r/o H.No.2758, Sunny Enclave, Sector 123, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Pb.)

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Canara HSBC OBC Life Insurance, SCO No.3, 1^st Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 26, Chandigarh 160019 through its Manager/ Authorised Representative.

… Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Babalpreet Singh, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Alankrit Bhardwaj, Advocate for OP

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Tejwinder Singh Gill, complainant against the aforesaid opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the OP).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that, in the month of July 2021, officials/agents of OP approached the complainant and allured him about the life insurance policy launched by the OP.  Being allured, complainant obtained the policy/plan namely “Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Guaranteed Income4Life Plan” (hereinafter referred to as “subject policy”) and paid the premium of ₹25,000/- with policy/risk commencing from 15.7.2021 and maturity date of 15.7.2029. At the time of issuance of subject policy, officials/agents of the OP had assured that, in case after one year complainant does not want to continue with the policy, OP will be liable to refund the amount of ₹25,000/- alongwith interest. Since after one year of commencement of the subject policy, behavior/ attitude of the OP was not good, complainant requested the OP for refund of base premium and finally requested on 29.8.2022, but, the officials of the OP lingered the matter on one pretext or the other and did not refund the amount.  In this manner, the aforesaid act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability and cause of action.  However, it is admitted that the subject policy was obtained by the complainant from the OP on payment of ₹25,000/- towards yearly premium for premium payment term of 7 years and policy term of 8 years on submitting the online proposal form.  It is further alleged that the complainant was explained about the terms and conditions of the subject policy which was duly received by him.  It is further alleged that the subject policy was despatched on the given address of the complainant.  It is also alleged that prior to the issuance of subject policy, verification call was conducted wherein policy details, lock in period, free look clause and other necessary details were duly informed to the complainant and the same were accepted by him.  As per the terms and conditions of the subject policy, complainant was provided a free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy to cancel the same in case of any discrepancy, but, the complainant had not opted within the free look period to cancel the policy and has concocted a false story that he was assured by the agents/ officials of OP that after one year if the complainant is not satisfied, he can get the same cancelled.  Even it has been held in number of judgments that, in case the insured failed to cancel the policy within the free look period and thereafter applies for cancellation of the subject policy after the risk period i.e. the period for which he has paid the premium, no refund can be allowed. On merits, the facts as stated in preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. Despite grant of sufficient opportunity, rejoinder was not filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OP.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had obtained the subject policy from the OP on payment of first premium of ₹25,000/-, commencing the risk w.e.f. 15.7.2021 to 15.7.2027, renewable annually, as is also evident from the copy of the subject policy (Annexure C-1) and after one year of the issuance of the subject policy, complainant had requested the OP for the cancellation of the same and sought refund of the premium amount and the same has not been refunded to him till date, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OP is unjustified in not acceding to the request of the complainant to refund the premium amount and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the OP has rightly not refunded the said amount and there being no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OP.
   2. In the backdrop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, one thing is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the terms & conditions of subject policy (Annexure C-1) and the same are required to be scanned carefully to determine the real controversy between the parties.
   3. Perusal of page 13 of the subject policy (Annexure C-1) clearly indicates that the same was issued to the complainant by the OP on payment of ₹25,000/- i.e. the first installment amount paid by the complainant to the OP with risk commencement date as 15.7.2021 and the last premium due date as 15.7.2027 and the said policy was renewable annually on payment of installment/premium by the complainant.  Clause 16 of Part F of the subject policy (at page 21 of Annexure C-1) prescribes the free look period for cancellation of the policy and the same is reproduced below for ready reference :-

“16. Free-look period: In case the Policy terms and conditions are not agreeable to You then You can opt for a cancellation of the Policy, in which case, We request You to send back this Policy Document along with the reason for your objection within 15 days (30 days in case the Policy is sourced through electronic mode or distance marketing mode) from the date of receipt of this Policy Document. In case You opt for cancellation within the said period. We shall refund the Premium received by Us subject only to deduction of the proportionate risk Premium for the period of life cover, stamp duty and medical expenses, if any. Please note that this facility is available only on receipt of the original Policy Document, and will not apply to duplicate Policy Document issued by the Company on Your request.”

 

4. In the case in hand, as it stands proved on record that the complainant has not opted for cancellation of the subject policy within the prescribed 15 days (30 days in case policy is sourced through electronic mode or distance marketing mode), it is clear that the complainant has not sought cancellation of the subject policy as per the terms & conditions of the same, especially when it is not the case of the complainant that he has never received the terms and conditions of the subject policy nor he was aware of the same.
5. Not only this, even it has further come on record that the premium paid by the complainant has already covered the risk for a given period i.e. for one year and it is not the case of the complainant that the risk was not covered for the period for which the premium was paid and the complainant has been seeking cancellation/refund of the premium amount, the complainant is not entitled for the same. 
6. In support of his case, learned counsel for the OP has relied upon the case titled Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. Siba Prasad Dash (Dr.) & Ors., IV (2008) CPJ 156 (NC) in which it was held as under:-

       “We are unable to appreciate as to on what ground the District Forum and State Commission could direct refund of premium? The premium is given by an insured, to cover the risk for a given period, and the insurer covers the risk for the period for which the premium has been paid. It is not the case of the complainant that the risk was not covered for the period for which the premium was given. If after that the policy lapsed, under no provision of terms of policy or law, could any Fora direct for refund of any premium for the simple reason, as already stated, that the risk stood covered for the period for which premium had been paid.”

 

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and the ratio of law down above, it is safe to hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Accordingly, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

05/01/2024 hg	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
	Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member