STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

1.     Gurvinder Bir Singh S/o Kuldeep Singh, age 64 years,

2]     Dupinder Kaur W/o Gurvinder Bir Singh, age 59 years,

        Both R/o H.No.654, Phase-6, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

        …..Appellants/Complainants

                                V E R S U S

1]     DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office SCO 335-36, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

2]     DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Company Ltd., 4th Floor, Building No.9, Tower-B, Cyber City, DLF City Phase-III, Gurgaon 122002.

                        ……Respondents/Opposite Parties

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU,                    MEMBER

Argued by:  

Sh.Maninder Arora, Advocate for the appellants.

Sh.Karan Nehra, Advocate for the respondents.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.09.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainants (now  appellants).

2.                    In brief, the facts of the case, are that the complainant purchased two Insurance Policies of DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Company Ltd, one in his name, and the other in the name of his wife, bearing Nos.000108876 & 000108770 respectively, on payment of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.75000/- for each policy) as premium (Ann.C-1 & C-2).  It was stated that the representatives of the Opposite Parties had misrepresented the complainants and got signed the blank forms from them.  They even filled the wrong information in the forms at their own.  It was further stated that the complainants never opted for the policies, in question, which were for the period of 15 to 20 years, as they were already in the age group of 64 & 58 years.  On receipt of the Policies, the representatives were informed regarding the wrong issuance of policies, in question, but they did nothing.  Ultimately, the Opposite Parties were requested to cancel the policies, but their request was rejected.  It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.                    The Opposite Parties were proceeded against exparte by the District Forum as despite due service, their authorized representatives did not put in appearance.

4.                    The complainants led evidence, in support of their case.

5.                    After hearing the Counsel for the complainants, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint. 

6.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/complainants.

7.                    We have heard the Counsel for the parties and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.                    The Counsel for the appellants submitted that the complainants being aged between 58-64 years, specifically told the representatives of the Opposite Parties that they intended to invest their money in such Policies which could be fully redeemed without any charges after 5 years.  After receiving the Policies, in question, in the third week of January, 2012, the complainants came to know that the said representatives invested their money in the long plan Policies for a period of 20 years, which they never intended to purchase because of their advance age. Immediately on receipt of the same, they approached the Sale Executives  of the Opposite Parties, by visiting their office as well as on mobile phone and requested them either to rectify the Policies or refund the premium amount. The call detail records (Annexure C-3 (Colly.) of the complainants clearly proves that they contacted the Sale Executives of the Opposite Parties on 24.01.12, 26.01.12., 02.02.12, 04.02.12, 06.02.12, 09.02.12, 10.02.12, 13.02.12, 17.02.12 and thereafter they sent an e-mail dated 13.03.2012  (Annexure C-4), wherein, all the facts were mentioned in detail.  Since the Opposite Parties were exparte, the documents Annexures C-3 and C-4 as also the allegations contained in the complaint remained uncontroverted and unrebutted. The complainants, thus, approached the Opposite Parties, within 15 days, after the receipt of the Policies, in question, (i.e. within the free look period), for its rectification/refund of the premium amount. Since the Opposite Parties were not ready to rectify the Policies, they were required to accept the request of the complainants for cancellation of the same and refund of the premium amount, after deducting the requisite charges  The complainants were thus entitled to the refund of the premium amount of Rs.75000/- each after deducting the necessary charges as per the policy documents at pages 26 and 39 of the District Forum file, wherein, it was mentioned as under:-

“If you are not satisfied with any aspect of the policy, you can return it to us within 15 days of receipt.  For Unit Link products, we will refund you the fund value on date of cancellation and any charges paid by you (post deduction of charges already incurred by us such as medical fees, stamp duty & risk premium for the period covered).  For other products, we will refund premium paid less expenses incurred and risk premium for the period covered. 

But the Opposite Parties by not refunding the premium amount after deducting the necessary charges as per the policy documents committed deficiency in service 

9.                    From the features of the Policies, in question, it is apparent that the same are not unit linked policies and , thus fall under the category of other products. As per the policy documents, the complainants are entitled to get the refund of premium paid less expenses incurred and risk premium for the period covered.  Admittedly, the complainants paid the first premium in the sum of Rs.75000/- each towards the Policies, in question,  and it was the bounden duty of the Opposite Parties to refund the premium amount as per the policy documents, which they failed to do, as such they were deficient in rendering service. The complainants, thus, certainly suffered mental agony and physical harassment on account of non-cancellation of the Policies, despite their repeated requests. As such, they are entitled to compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.

10.                  The District Forum failed to take into consideration the aforesaid aspects of case. Had the District Forum, appreciated the facts, circumstances and evidence, on record, in its proper perspective it would not have fallen into an error in holding hat there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties. The order of the District Forum, thus, being, illegal and perverse, is liable to be set aside.

11.                 For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted with costs, and the order of the District Forum is set aside.  Consequently, the complaint is allowed and the respondents/Opposite Parties  are directed to: 

    i)      refund the premium paid i.e. Rs.1,50,000/-less expenses incurred and risk premium, for the period covered, to the complainants against the Policies, in question.

    ii)     pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainants as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.

    iii)            pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

This order shall be complied with, by the respondents/Opposite Parties within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the same, failing which, they shall be liable to pay the aforesaid payable amounts as mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) of this para with penal interest @ 9% p.a. to the appellants/complainants from the date of order  till realization, besides costs of litigation.

12.                 Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

13.                 The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.                                                                          Sd/-

21.01.2013                               [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER[RETD.]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT         

                                                                                                Sd/-                                              [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER

cmg