Complaint No: 57 of 2020.
Date of Institution: 11.09.2020.
Date of order: 06.12.2023.
Mandeep Singh Son of S. Tarsem Singh, resident of Back Side Dr. Babbar Hospital, House No. 162/14, Trimmo Road, Gurdaspur.
…..........Complainant.
VERSUS
1. DHFL PRAMARICA Life Insurance Company Ltd. Registered Office 4th Floor, Building No. 9, Tower B, Cyber City, DLF City Phase-3, Gurgaon, Haryana Pin Code – 122002, through its authorized signatory / responsible person.
2. DHFL PRAMARICA Life Insurance Company Ltd. Registered Office at 1st
Floor, A K Plaza, Dev Arcade, Opposite YP Tower, Civil Line Jail Road, Gurdaspur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, through its authorized signatory / responsible person.
3. PRAMARICA Life Insurance Company Ltd. Registered office 4th Floor, Building No. 9B, Phase 3, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase 2, Sector 29, Gurugram, Haryana, Pin Code – 122002, through its authorized signatory / responsible person.
4. Punjab National Bank, through its Branch Manager G.T. Road Gurddaspur.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Manoj Loomba, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2: Sh.Sachin Mahajan, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No.4: Sh.Bishwajeet Uppal, Advocate.
Opposite Party No.3: Exparte.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Mandeep Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against DHFL PRAMARICA Life Ins. Co. Ltd. Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant was policy holder vide policy No. 000380187 dated 10.09.2015 which was purchased from the OP’s No.1 and 2 from Branch Jail Road, Gurdaspur. The complainant is serving in Indian Army and the premium is deducted from his salary account. It is pleaded that it has come to the notice of complainant that the OP's have changed its board of directors and the company has been taken over by some other Foreign Company regarding which no information was given to him, hence he is not willing to continue his above said policy. Moreover the OP's have wrongly charged two installments instead of one in the month of Feb 2018. It is further pleaded that thereafter the complainant also sent application to the OP's through registered post and requested them to return the amount of Rs.3,02,940/- as he is not willing to continue with his above said policy, but they refused to do so. It is further pleaded that as such it is clear that the OP's till date illegally deducted the amount from the account of complainant which is clear cut case of deficiency in service and also cheating. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to return the amount of Rs.3,02,940/- alongwith 12% interest and further order the opposite parties to pay Rs.30,000/- on account of harassment and mental pain and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses and deficiency in service to the complainant, in the interest of justice.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint filed by the Complainant is false, malicious, incorrect, malafide and is nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of the law and it is an attempt to waste the precious time of this Hon'ble Court, as the same has been filed by the Complainant just to avail undue advantage. It is further pleaded that above complaint is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and is thus, liable to be dismissed in limine. It is pleaded that the answering opposite parties at the very beginning states that the allegations / accusations leveled by the Complainant are wrong and baseless and there has been no negligence whatsoever, on part of the Opposite Parties in dealing with the concerned Policy, thus, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed by this Learned Court on this ground alone. It is further pleaded that thereafter the above said Policy contracts were due for the Renewal Premium and he made the payment and the said Policy contract is still in force. It is further pleaded that in this policy the complainant was required to submit premium on monthly basis and he choose to have the said premium deducted from his salary account. It is further pleaded that this give inference that he was very much willing to purchase and then continue the policy. It is further pleaded that the instant complaint lacks a cause of action. It is further pleaded that complaint of the Complainant is based on mere surmises and conjectures. It is an established principle of law that the machinery of law cannot be invoked on the basis of mere conjectures. It is further pleaded that Complainant was clearly explained regarding the Terms and conditions of the said policies and the payment schedules at the time of signing of the Policy documents. It is further pleaded that the complainant was duly informed regarding the free look cancellation period vide welcome letter and premium receipt dated 10.09.2015. It is further pleaded that complainant was even supplied with a benefit illustration for "DHFL PRAMARICA Rakshak Plus" but the complainant never applied before the opposite parties for cancellation of the said Policies within the stipulated free look cancellation period. It is further pleaded that complaint is time barred, hence is liable to be dismissed. As per free look cancellation provision and terms and conditions of the policy contract in case the policyholder has objection regarding any terms of insurance policy then he may apply for free look cancellation within 15 days from the date of receipt of policy pack. It is further pleaded that however in this case the complainant did not raise any concern during the said stipulated period. It is further pleaded that Regulation 10 of The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Protection of Policyholders' Interests) Regulations, 2017 stipulates that the free look cancellation period of 15 days to be given to every policyholder. It is further pleaded that thereafter as per the procedure, the Company dispatched the Policy documents and same were delivered to the policyholder and the complainant had admitted the receipt of policy documents. It is further pleaded that the complainant later on lost the original policy pack and he applied for duplicate copy of the same by submitting the request letter as well as indemnity bond as per standard protocol of the Company and on the basis of complainant's application the duplicate copy of policy pack was delivered to the complainant. It is further pleaded that complainant received the same on 09.09.2019 and signed an acknowledgement of receipt of policy pack. It is further pleaded that the complainant first time approached the answering opposite parties on 15.01.2020 i.e. after almost 5 years requesting to cancel the policy because he came to know that the board of directors of the Company has been changed and name of the Company was also changed. It is further pleaded that in February 2018 his account was debited twice and complaint was replied by the opposite parties vide E-mail dated 17.01.2020. It is further pleaded that in the reply dated 17.02.2020 the complainant was educated that the name change will not affect any of the policy benefits or customer servicing as the company remains committed to serving its policyholders with the highest standards of professionalism and service. It is further pleaded that name change does not alter the legal status or Constitution of the Company nor does it affect any rights or obligations of the Company. It is further pleaded that he was also guided that Pramerica Life Insurance Ltd. is adequately capitalized and currently has a very healthy solvency ratio of 338% (as on Sep'19) against 150% mandated by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India. A high solvency rate indicates that the company's financial position is strong and can meet all its liabilities including any policyholder benefits. It is further pleaded that in respect to Complainant's 2nd concern the Complainant was informed that no two installments were deducted in the month of Feb, 2018 and he was requested to share the bank statement for further investigation. It is further pleaded that for the best reason known to the complainant he did not provide any document in this respect. It is further pleaded that indeed all the policies were terminated by operation of law without any value. As per terms and conditions of the policy contract the policy shall auto terminate in case regular premium of at least two years is not received by the Company. It is further pleaded that Regulation 20 (a) & (b) of IRDA (Non-Linked Insurance Products) Regulations, 2019, delineates that the premium must be paid at least for two consecutive years of the total premium payment term of a particular product, in order to secure surrender value. It is further pleaded that the contract of insurance between the complainant and answering opposite parties is governed by its terms & conditions. It is further pleaded that the policy in issue is governed by policy contracts' terms and conditions and as per terms and conditions the complainant is not entitled for surrender any amount. It is further pleaded that the complaint is barred by limitation as the policy was issued on 10.09.2015 and the complainant did not raise any concern about the policy for more than 5 years. Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
On merits, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Opposite party No.3 did not appear despite the service of notice and was proceeded against exparte vide order date 04.09.2023.
5. Upon notice, the opposite party No.4 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the answering opposite party. It is pleaded that even as per complaint the allegations and relief has been claimed against the OP’s No.1 and 2 and not against the opposite party No.4. In the present complaint, the dispute is regarding return of policy installments / payment and the answering opposite party have no link with this. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the opposite party No.4. It is further pleaded that there is no deficiency in services or negligence on the part of the opposite party No.4. Hence, the question of suffering monitory loss and mental / physical agony does not arise. The opposite party No.4 cannot be held responsible for that.
On merits, the opposite party No.4 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Mandeep Singh, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 and 2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Mr. Parmal Singh, (D.M - Legal of DHFL Pramerica Life Ins. Co. Ltd, Gurgaon) as Ex.OPW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-6.
8. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 has filed reply.
9. Rejoinder filed by the complainant.
10. Written arguments not filed by the parties.
11. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had purchased two policies from the opposite parties No.1 and 2. However, complainant came know that board of director of the company has been changed and some foreign company has taken over the company i.e. opposite parties No.1 and 2 and since the complainant was not given information. As such complainant does not want to continue with the policies. It is further argued that opposite parties No.1 and 2 deducted two installments in the month Feb. 2018. It is further argued that complainant is entitled to receive Rs.3,02,940/- alongwith interest and damages from the opposite parties No.1 and 2.
12. On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties No.1 and 2 has argued that complainant himself applied for issuance of policies by filing up the proposal form and provided other relevant documents and accordingly policies were issued. It is further argued that the terms and conditions of the policies were explained to the complainant. It is further argued that if the terms and conditions were not acceptable to the complainant the complainant was within his right to avail Free Look period Cancellation of Life Insurance Policies but having failed to do so complainant is not entitled to get the policies cancelled. It is further argued that name change does not alter the legal status or jurisdiction of the company nor does it effect any rights and obligations of the company and opposite parties No.1 and 2 never deducted two installments in the month of Feb. 2018.
13. Opposite party No.3 remained exparte.
14. Counsel for the opposite party No.4 has argued that bank has nothing to do with the issuance of the policy in question as such complaint is legally not maintainable against the opposite party No.4.
15. We have heard the Ld. counsels for the complainant and opposite parties no.1,2 and 4.
16. Perusal of welcome letter and policies of insurance shows that the policies of insurance commenced on 10.09.2015 and the complainant failed to get benefit of 15 days Free Look Period and get the policies cancelled if the terms and conditions of the policies of insurance were not acceptable to the complainant. We are of the view that change of name of the company in no way effect the liabilities of the company and request for cancellation of the policies on 10.01.2020 vide Ex.C6 on the ground of change of name of the company and board of director in no way give right to complainant to get the policies cancelled. Accordingly, we do not find any deficiency in service or business malpractice on the part of the opposite parties.
17. Accordingly, the complaint being without any merit is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.
18. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
19. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Dec. 06, 2023 Member
*YP*
