Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/151

Jagsir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF Pramerica LIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vipan Kumar Tayal

14 Feb 2017

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :      151

Date of Institution:  01.06.2016

Date of Decision :   14.02.2017

 

Jagsir Singh aged about 62 years s/o Bhagwan Singh r/o Muktsar Road, Mohalla Govind Pura, Near PSB Road, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Company Ltd, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its MD.
2. DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Company Ltd, 3^rd Floor, Sardar Guljar Singh Walia Complex, Above V Mega Mart, Near Bus Stand, Bathinda through its Manager.                         ..... (Ops)

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Vipin Tayal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Ashok Kumar Monga, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                         Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to refund the amount of Rs.1,80,000/-with interest and for further directing OPs to pay Rs 1,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, harassment, inconvenience, mental agony besides litigation expenses.

2                                    Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant after retirement from Food and Supply Department, received Rs. 20 lacs as retirement benefits and he deposited Rs.10 lacs with bank as fixed deposit. It is further submitted that agent/employee of OPs approached the complainant and allured him to purchase their insurance policy with assurance that he would get more benefit from insurance policy than from fixed deposits. They assured he would also get rebate from Income Tax on said insurance policy as well as heavy interest at the rate of 12% per anum after two years on insured amount. Being fully allured by assurances of OPs, complainant purchased insurance policies from OPs and paid Rs.1,80,000/-to OPs. At that time, OPs took signatures of complainant as well as his son on many blank forms and they also did not disclose any terms and conditions to them. It is further submitted that after two years, when OPs did not pay any amount to complainant, complainant approached OP-2, who told him that as per IRDA rules, the lock in period for withdrawing the amount is three years ad only after a period of three years, deposited amount would be released to him and after three years, when complainant again approached OP-2, he was told by OP-2 that his policy in question has been lapsed and he is not entitled to any refund. Complainant requested them to refund the whole amount with interest, but OPs put off the complainant on one pretext or the other and then finally did not admit his request and refused to refund the amount and told  that policy has been lapsed and he is not entitled to any relief as sought by him. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part and it has caused harassment and mental agony to complainant and he has prayed for accepting the present complaint. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                             The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 6.06.2016 passed by this Forum, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                    On receipt of the notice, the opposite party filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is false and frivolous and it is filed only to injure the goodwill and reputation of OPs and to obtain undue advantage. Moreover, complainant has concealed the material facts and no cause of action arises against answering OPs. It is averred that complainant does not want to continue the policy and is resorting to unfair means and is pressurising the OPs to cancel the policy and return the premium and want to gain undue advantage from OPs. It is further averred that as per clause no. 2.5 of the Policy, the insured was at liberty to return the policy alongwith letter stating the reason for disagreement within a period of 15 days of receipt of the policy and during this ‘Free Look Period’, policy was to be cancelled and the  premium was to be refunded, but complainant  himself did not  opt the said option. It is further averred that complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint. It is further stated that complainant was fully explained all the terms and conditions of the policy and after going through the detail description of policy, complainant had signed the proposal form with his own free will and conduct. It is averred that contract was concluded between complainant and OPs and insurance policy being a legal document and its terms and conditions are binding both on complainant as well as OPs. However, on merits, OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong, incorrect but admitted before the Forum that they issued policies in question to complainant. Allegations regarding alluring and misguiding the complainant are totally denied and asserted that complainant consented to execute proposal form and OPs issued said policies on the basis of proposal form submitted policies in question was issued to complainant vide dispatch dated 1.01.2013 and 2.01.13. It is averred that complainant purchased the said policy for the sake of investment to earn maximum profit from the policy. Moreover, it is barred by limitation also as complainant has filed the present complaint after expiry of 2 years and 8 months and is therefore liable to be dismissed on this ground also. This Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint as it involves complex question of law and facts requiring voluminous evidence and it has to be adjudicated by competent court. Ld counsel for OPs submitted that complainant purchased the policy in question after going through its all terms and conditions and that is why he opted for multiple policies. Complainant purchased two policies with a premium payment of 15 years and 20 years respectively, but he failed to deposit the premiums and thus, violated the terms and conditions of the policy and due to this reason, his policies have been lapsed. It is further averred that despite repeated reminders, complainant did not deposit the premium payment due towards policies. Ops have specifically denied the allegations of any fraud or alluring the complainant by them. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service and all the other allegations alongwith allegation regarding relief sought too are refuted with a prayer to dismiss the complaint with costs.

5                           Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-4 and then, closed the evidence.

6                          In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party 1 tendered in evidence, affidavit of Parmal Singh as Ex OP-1, affidavit of Sahil Mahajan as Ex OP-2 and documents Ex OP-3 to 18 and then, closed the evidence.

7                  The ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant after retirement from Food and Supply Department, received Rs. 20 lacs as retirement benefits and he deposited Rs.10 lacs with bank as fixed deposit. It is further submitted that agent/employee of OPs approached the complainant and allured him to purchase their insurance policy with assurance that he would get more benefit from insurance policy than from fixed deposits. They assured he would also get rebate from Income Tax on said insurance policy as well as heavy interest at the rate of 12% per anum after two years on insured amount. Being fully allured by assurances of OPs, complainant purchased  insurance policies from OPs and paid Rs1,80,000/-to OPs. At that time, OPs took signatures of complainant as well as his son on many blank forms and they also did not disclose any terms and conditions to them. It is further submitted that after two years, when OPs did not pay any amount to complainant, complainant approached OP-2, who told him that as per                   IRDA rules, the lock in period for withdrawing the amount is three years ad only after a period of three years, deposited amount would be released to him and after three years, when complainant again approached OP-2, he was told by OP-2 that his policy in question has been lapsed and he is not entitled to any refund. Complainant requested them to refund the whole amount with interest, but OPs put off the complainant on one pretext or the other and then finally did not admit his request and refused to refund the amount and told  that policy has been lapsed and he is not entitled to any relief as sought by him. All this amounts to deficiency in service and it has caused harassment and mental agony to complainant. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint and stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 4

 8                     To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued before the Forum that complainant does not want to continue the policy and is resorting to unfair means and is pressurising the OPs to cancel the policy and return the premium and want to gain undue advantage from OPs. It is further averred that as per clause no. 2.5 of the Policy, the insured was at liberty to return the policy alongwith letter stating the reason for disagreement within a period of 15 days of receipt of the policy and during this ‘Free Look Period’, policy was to be cancelled and the  premium was to be refunded, but complainant  himself did not  opt the said option. It is further averred that complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint. It is further stated that complainant was fully explained all the terms and conditions of the policy and after going through the detail description of policy, complainant had signed the proposal form with his own free will. OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong, incorrect but admitted before the Forum that they issued policy in question to complainant. Allegations regarding alluring and misguiding the complainant are totally denied and asserted that complainant consented to execute proposal form and OPs issued said policies on the basis of proposal form submitted policies in question was issued to complainant vide dispatch dated 1.01.2013 and 2.01.13. It is averred that complainant purchased the said policy for the sake of investment to earn maximum profit from the policy. Moreover, it is barred by limitation also as complainant has filed the present complaint after expiry of 2 years and 8 months and is therefore liable to be dismissed on this ground also. This Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint as it involves complex question of law and facts requiring voluminous evidence and it has to be adjudicated by competent court. Ld counsel for OPs submitted that complainant purchased the policy in question after going through its all terms and conditions and that is why he opted for multiple policies. He purchased two policies with a premium payment of 15 years and 20 years respectively, but he failed to deposit the premiums and thus, violated the terms and conditions of the policy and due to this reason, his policies have been lapsed. It is further averred that despite repeated reminders, complainant did not deposit premium payment due towards policies. Ops have specifically denied the allegations of any fraud or alluring the complainant by them. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service and prayed for its dismissal.

9                          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.

10                      The case of complainant is that after being fully allured by OPs, complainant invested Rs.1,80,000/- in insurance policies of OPs and at the time of purchasing the same, OPs assured complainant that he would gain more interest on policies in question than on fixed deposits. Complainant was also assured of rebate on income tax and OPs also assured him that after two years, he would get back his entire amount with 12 % interest thereon and at that time Ops took signatures of complainant and his son on many blank printed forms, but after expiry of two years, they did not return his money with interest and therefore, under compelling circumstances, complainant had to file the present complaint. On the other hand, plea taken by OPs is that complainant himself failed in depositing the policy premiums within time and has violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy in question. As per policy terms, the complainant could surrender the policy within 15 days of free look period, if he was not satisfied with Policy, but complainant did not opt for this option. Moreover, complainant purchased the said insurance policy after thoroughly going through the detail description and benefits of same and he sent proposal form with his own will and now, complainant has no right to give up this policy.

11                     Ld Counsel for complainant has relied upon documents Ex C-3 and Ex C-4, which are copies of insurance policies issued by Ops. Through affidavit Ex C-1 and 4 he has reiterated his pleadings. On the contrary , ld counsel for OPs have placed on record copies of letters Ex Op-13 to 18 issued by Ops to complainant, wherein it is clearly revealed that premium payment pertaining to policies in question was due towards complainant and he did not pay the same within prescribed times Ex Op-12 is the copy of reply to letter of complainant, in which it is clearly explained that all documents in respect of policies in question were delivered to complainant at the address given by him and it also reveals that complainant did not given option for withdrawing the policies within free look period of 15 days for not continuing the said policies and thus, request of complainant for cancellation of policies received quite late. Ex Op-13 to 18 Renewal Billing Follow Up Notice issued by Ops prove the fact that complainant was defaulter in making payment of premiums pertaining to policies in question and now, as he does not want to continue the same, he has levelled false allegations to get refund of his amount. Ex OP-4 and 5 are copies of proposal forms filled by complainant in his own hand. Ex OP-8 and Ex OP-10 are policy details clearly proving the fact that all terms and conditions of policies were in the knowledge of complainant beforehand.

12                    From the careful perusal of record produced by complainant as well as OPs and in the light of evidence produced by parties, this Forum is of considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and being devoid of                                       merits, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 14.02.2017                 

                                        Member                             President

                    (P Singla)                                (Ajit Aggarwal)