DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No140/2019
Sh. Mayank Grover
S/o Late Sh. R.P. Grover
R/o A-52, First Floor, South Extn,
Part-I, New Delhi-49
.…Complainant
VERSUS
M/s DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance Company Ltd.
Office No.303 & 303A (3rd Floor),
Arunachal Building 19, Barakhamba Road,
Barakhamba, New Delhi-110001
….Opposite Party
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Present: Adv.Jawahar Chawla along with Adv. Mausam Sahni for
complainant.
None for OP.
ORDER
Date of Institution: 16.05.2019
Date of Order :12.11.2024
President: Kiran Kaushal
1. Facts of the case as pleaded by the complainant are that complainant’s father who is now deceased took investment/insurance bonds from M/s DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance Company Ltd., hereinafter referred to as OP.
2. Complainant’s father paid Rs.99,999/- towards premium which was collected by OP on 22.08.2016. It is stated that complainant’s father had disclosed the fraudulent acts and deals of OP before he met with the untimely death on 11.08.2017 due to massive heart-attack. It is next stated that OP had failed to issue and deliver the insurance cover/policy/bond even till date and as such terms and conditions of the said policy have remained unknown to the complainant.
3. It is further stated that the complainant around 01.10.2017 came to know that the aforesaid amount was collected by OP for the purpose of issuing insurance/investment bond. The proposal form was neither signed nor filled up by the complainant. Complainant’s consent was not sought and even complainant had no knowledge about the same at any point of time. Even the details filled in the said proposal form are deemed to be incorrect. It is stated that the complainant was not interested to take the aforesaid insurance policy and even otherwise the said insurance bond has not reached the complainant till date.
4. It is stated that neither the complainant’s father nor the complainant were interested in taking the aforesaid insurance policy. Complainant’s father (now deceased) was made to part with his and his family’s hard earned money and has been virtually looted by OP. Due to the aforesaid acts and deed of OP, complainant has suffered irreparable loss. Hence, the complainant claims refund of the premium with interest @18% p.a w.e.f 22.08.2016 up to 14.05.2019 and compensation for mental agony, humiliation harassment and charges of legal notices.
5. Alleging deficiency of service, complainant prays for direction to OP to pay Rs.4,64,400/- towards refund of premium i.e Rs.99,999/- with interest @18% i.e Rs.59,400/-; Rs.3,00,000/ towards compensation for mental agony and humiliation and Rs.5,000/- for legal notice and follow-up expenses, totaling to Rs. 4,64,400/-; to award interest @2% per month w.e.f from the date of complaint till realization; to award cost of litigation and expenses.
6. OP resisted the complaint raising preliminary objections that the instant complaint is filed beyond the period of limitation. It is stated that the policy was issued on 02.09.2016 and delivered to the complainant on 05.09.2016, thus the cause of action first time arose on 05.09.2016. It is stated that despite the delivery of the policy, complainant failed to approach OP within the free-look period for cancellation of the said policy.
7. It is next stated that the complainant has neither raised any complaint about mis-selling, forgery/fraud nor raised any objection within the free-look period though, he had received all the policy documents. It is further stated that the complainant never raised any query or complaint at the time of welcome call made by OP before and after issuing of the policy. Now, in order to harass and victimize OP, complainant has filed false and frivolous complaint.
8. It is further stated that complainant after completely understanding the terms and conditions of ‘DPLI SMART CASH PROTECT’ had voluntarily applied for an insurance policy on 18.08.2016. In the said proposal form the complainant is the life assured and his father is the nominee. The complainant had given all relevant details and information in the prescribed form for a sum assured of Rs.10,22,0761/- for which premium amounting to Rs.99,999/-was proposed to be paid annually for a period of 15 years and the coverage term is of 35 years. Copy of the application is annexed as Annexure OP 2.
9. It is stated that complainant sent a first legal notice dated 03.11.2017, alleging some false, concocted and baseless story which was duly replied by OP vide its reply dated 20.11.2017. Thereafter, OP after eight months received second false legal notice dated 14.07.2018 alleging another false concocted story which is different and contradictory with the submissions as mentioned in the first legal notice.
10. It is next stated that in the first notice the complainant mentioned that he had policy bearing no.439962 issued by OP and in the second notice he has mentioned that he had no knowledge of the policy. The second notice was also duly replied by OP vide reply dated 22.08.2018. Copies of legal notices and reply are annexed as Annexure OP 8,9,10 and 11.
11. In light of the above, it is prayed that complaint be dismissed with cost.
12. Complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OP stating that complainant’s signatures on the application and related documents are forged and fabricated and the same does not bear true signatures of the complainant, who neither intended nor had any necessity for the said insurance policy. Evidence and written arguments have been filed on behalf of parties. Submissions made on behalf of parties are heard. Material placed on record is perused.
13. Perusal of the documents placed before us reveal that the Complainant is the policy holder of the ‘Smart Cash Protect Policy’. It is seen that Rs.99,999/- were paid from the savings banks account of the father of the complainant, towards the first premium. Complainant was to pay an yearly premium for 15 years and the coverage of the policy is 35 years with the sum assured of Rs. 10,22,761/-.
14. Complainant’s case is that he neither had any knowledge nor was interested in taking the said insurance policy. It is noticed that the Application form for the policy is having the photograph of the Complainant along with his Pan Card and Voter ID Card. The said application has the signatures of the complainant though refuted by the complainant. However the complainant has not placed any forensic report on record to prove that the signatures are forged. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the complainant did have the knowledge of said insurance policy.
15. Mere fact that the first premium was paid by the complainant’s father does not absolve the complainant from further making payments towards the premium. It is also seen that the complainant did not avail the free-look period of 15 days to get his policy cancelled and seek refund.
16. From the facts stated above, it is clear that the complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands. The maxim ‘the person who seeks equity, must do equity’ holds true hence, this Commission is of the opinion that complainant who is seeking equitable relief from the Commission should be willing to fulfill his own obligations. The complainant is not allowed to retreat from the contract after providing his personal documents and signing the policy.
17. In light of the aforesaid facts, complaint is dismissed.
Copy of the order be given to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website.
