DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Consumer Complaint No. | : | 341 of 2011 | Date of Institution | : | 01.08.2011 | Date of Decision | : | 26.03.2013 |
Hatinder Kansal s/o Sh. Dinesh Kumar r/o H.No.75, Sector 15A, Chandigarh 160015. ---Complainant. Versus 1. DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 4th Floor, Building No.9B, Cyber City, DLF City Ph III, Gurgaon 122002, through its Managing Director. 2. Mr. Anurag Singh, Asstt. Manager, DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 4th Floor, Building No.9B, Cyber City, DLF City Ph III, Gurgaon 122002; 3. Mr. Deepak Jain, Sr. Officer of DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st and 2nd Floor, SCO No.335-336, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. 4. Ms. Chintan Kaur, concerned official of DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st and 2nd Floor, SCO No.335-336, Sector 35B, Chandigarh. 5. Mr. Nikhil Nanda, concern official, DLF Premerica Life Insurance Co. Ltd., r/o H.No.1038B, Phase XI, Mohali, SAS Nagar. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER Argued by: Complainant in person None for OPs No.1 to 4. Sh. Sukaam Gupta, counsel for OP No.5. PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. The complainant had applied for a life insurance policy from the opposite parties after paying premium of Rs.6,000/- in January 2010. Policy No.0016899 was issued to him. The complainant has stated that he was assured that if the terms and conditions of the policy were not acceptable to him, he would have the option for refund of the premium within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy. The complainant accordingly opted for refund of the premium after handing over the original policy to opposite parties No.4 & 5. He was assured that the amount would be refunded to him within a few days. However, despite so much correspondence between the parties, the amount has still remained unpaid. The complainant has thus filed the present complaint for refund of the premium amount alongwith compensation, interest and costs of litigation. 2. Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties. 3. Opposite parties No.1 to 5 have filed their joint written reply and have denied all the averments and contentions made in the complaint except the issuance of the policy. According to the opposite parties, as per the requirements of IRDA, a free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of policy was the entitlement of the consumer. However, the policy holder did not raise any complaint/objection regarding the policy either within the free look period of 15 days or even a reasonable period thereafter. Thus the contract of insurance attained finality while the complainant continued to enjoy coverage for the period. After the expiry of the free look period, the policy terms and conditions permit surrender of policy only after three years when surrender value is payable in accordance with the terms of the policy. Accordingly, refund of the amount paid as premium cannot be made to the complainant as his request is beyond the free look period. In fact, the complainant was required to pay a premium of Rs.6,000/- per annum for 20 years against the policy issued to him. The policy commencing 31.1.2010 was received by the complainant vide skylark courier bearing No.AWB 17149053 on 2.5.2010. The complainant sent the cancellation letter dated 29.5.2010 which was received by the opposite parties on 3.6.2010. The request was accordingly declined as the same was received after the free look period. All other correspondence and letters as well as legal notice issued by the complainant have been duly replied by the opposite parties. In parawise reply the opposite parties have reiterated that the cancellation request for the policy was received after the expiry of free look period and hence the complainant was not entitled to the amount claimed. The opposite parties have, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. Opposite party No.5 also filed a separate written reply taking a preliminary objection that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant against opposite party No.5. The policy handed over to the complainant was returned back by the complainant on the ground that the terms and conditions were not acceptable and these documents were submitted to opposite parties No.3 & 4 on the same date by opposite party No.5. On merits the opposite party has admitted the factual position regarding issuance of the policy. Denying all other allegations, opposite party No.5 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua him. 5. On 25.3.2013, when the case was fixed for arguments, none appeared for opposite parties No.1 to 4. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of this complaint on merits under Rule 4 (8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Act (as amended upto date) even in the absence of opposite parties No.1 to 4. 6. We have heard the complainant in person, ld. Counsel for opposite party No.5 and have gone through the documents on record. 7. The grievance of the complainant is with regard to non refund of the premium amount on his request for cancellation of the policy issued by the opposite parties. As per Annexure C-1, the date of request is 29.5.2010. It has reached the opposite party on 3.6.2010. Other letters placed on record by the complainant relate to the subsequent correspondence on the same ground. However, there is no letter on record to show that the complainant has utilised the free look period for cancellation of the policy. The opposite parties in para 7(ii) of their preliminary objections and submissions have specifically stated that the standard terms and conditions alongwith the policy schedule and welcome letter were delivered to the address of the complainant vide Skylark courier bearing No.AWB 17149053 on 2.5.2010. The complainant did not file any rejoinder to controvert the said stand of the opposite parties. 8. The complainant has also not filed any rebuttal evidence denying the contention of the opposite parties about the dates of correspondence or that his request for cancellation is within the required grace period. In the circumstances, as the complainant has not availed of the benefit of the grace period, we do not think he is entitled to the refund of the amount paid in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. We accordingly find no merit in this complaint and dismiss it without costs. 9. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 26.3.2013. Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
