DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT, AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/190.

Date of Institution   : 14.03.2018/29.11.2021.

Date of Decision    : 05.07.2022.

Mr. Balraj Singh son of Sh. Dharampal Singh, Resident of VPO Pandori Ran Singh District Tarn Taran.   

                …Complainant Versus

1.DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Company Limited now DHLF, 4th Floor, Building No. 9, tower B, Cyber City, DLF City Phase-III, Gurgaon-122002 through its Managing Director and CEO, Mr. Pavan Dhamija. 

2.DLF  Prameirca Life Insurance Company Limited now DHLF, 2nd Floor, Nagpal Tower, C- Block, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its Authorized Representative.   

                 …Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 & 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As Amended Upto Date.

 

Present: Sh. Sanjiv Prashar Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. Deepinder Singh Adv counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2. 

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

 

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT):

1. The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) against DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Company Limited and others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties)

2. Brief facts of the case are that the authorized representative/agent of the opposite parties Mr. Jagir Singh approached the complainant and told the complainant to invest Rs. 50,000/- with the opposite parties and assured that the complainant will be insured and after the completion of six years from the date of payment, the opposite parties will return the double of the invested amount to the complainant. It is alleged that on the assurance of the agent, the complainant had purchased a DLF Pramerica Tatkaal Suraksha Gold Policy bearing Policy No. 000054468 by paying an policy installment premium of Rs. 50,000/- under Plan Code TRFTMN1007 from the opposite party No. 1 through their agent Mr. Jagir Singh and the said policy was commenced on 3.3.2011. It is further alleged that after the completion of six years, the complainant approached the opposite parties in the month of April 2017 and requested to release the double of the amount but the opposite parties linger on the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately refused to make any amount to the complainant. The opposite parties told the complainant that he failed to make the payment of installments and as such the opposite parties are unable to pay any amount to the complainant. Due to the above said act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant suffered mental agony and harassment and the same amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i) To pay Rs. 50,000/- alongwith Rs. 50,000/- (in total Rs. 1,00,000/-) which the opposite parties promised.    

ii) To pay Rs. 20,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs. 10,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds that in the present dispute complainant has alleged that dispute arose in December, 2017 but have not produced any document as and when complainant approached opposite parties, whereas present complaint has been filed after 7 years from the date of issue (3.3.2011) of the policy just to harass the opposite parties. Further, complainant has not come with clean hands, the present complaint is baseless and lacking of cause of action etc. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant after understanding all the terms and conditions of the DLF Pramerica Assure Money+ and after being satisfied with the plan Sh. Balraj Singh dully filled and signed Application Forms bearing No. 000167944 dated 28.2.2011 for an sum assured sum of Rs. 6,17,470/- and under the said policies a premium of Rs. 49,490/- was to be paid annually for the period of 20 years. Thereafter, the receipt of the premium amount the policy bearing No. 54468 was issued with the commencement date of 3.3.2011 and the same was dispatched vide Speed Post AWB number ED044204872IN dated 5.3.2011. It is further submitted that under the IRDA Regulations 2002, the policyholder is at liberty to review the terms and conditions of the policy and has the option to cancel the policy by stating the reason for his/her objection within 15 days of the receipt of the policy bond (Free Look Period). In such cases the opposite party Company is entitled to deduct charges like stamp duty etc. and refund the balance premium to the policyholder but complainant has not claimed any refund even after the receipt of the policy which was duly delivered and admitted by complainant in its policy. It is further alleged that the opposite parties issued Renewal Premium Notice dated 12.2.2012 for the payment of renewal premium for the year 2012 and also issued renewal premium follow up notice dated 18.3.2012. But the complainant has not paid renewal premium for the year 2012 and as such policy lapsed and notice was issued by the opposite parties to the complainant on 2.4.2012. As such, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

4. In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, copy of the insurance policy Ex.C-2 and closed the evidence.   

5. On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Parmal Singh Manager Ex.O.P1 alongwith documents Ex.O.P2 to Ex.O.P7 and closed the evidence.  

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record by the parties. 

7. Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that on the assurance of the agent of opposite parties the complainant had purchased a DLF Pramerica Tatkaal Suraksha Gold Policy bearing Policy No. 000054468 by paying an policy installment premium of Rs. 50,000/- under Plan Code TRFTMN1007 from the opposite party No. 1 through their agent Mr. Jagir Singh and the said policy was commenced on 3.3.2011. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for complainant that after the completion of six years, the complainant approached the opposite parties in the month of April 2017 and requested to release the double of the amount but the opposite parties linger on the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately refused to make any amount to the complainant. Ld. Counsel for complainant also argued that the opposite parties told the complainant that the complainant failed to make the payment of installments, as such the opposite parties are unable to pay any amount to the complainant. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for opposite parties argued that the complainant has alleged that the dispute arose in December, 2017 but have not produced any document as and when complainant approached the opposite parties. However, the present complaint has been filed after 7 years from the date of issue i.e. 3.3.2011 of the policy. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties further argued that the complainant after understanding all the terms and conditions of the DLF Pramerica Assure Money+ filled and signed the Application Forms bearing No. 000167944 dated 28.2.2011 Ex.O.P4 for an sum assured of Rs. 6,17,470/-. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for opposite parties that under the said policy a premium of Rs. 49,490/- was to be paid annually for the period of 20 years. Thereafter, the receipt of the premium amount and the policy bearing No. 54468 was issued with the commencement date of 3.3.2011 and the same was dispatched vide Speed Post AWB number ED044204872IN dated 5.3.2011 to the complainant. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties also argued that under the IRDA Regulations 2002, the policyholder is at liberty to review the terms and conditions of the policy and has the option to cancel the policy by stating the reason for his/her objection within 15 days of the receipt of the policy bond (Free Look Period). It is further argued that the opposite parties issued Renewal Premium Notice dated 12.2.2012 Ex.O.P5 for the payment of renewal premium for the year 2012 and also issued renewal premium follow up notice dated 18.3.2012 Ex.O.P6. But the complainant has not paid renewal premium for the year 2012, as such the above said policy lapsed and in this regard a notice was issued by the opposite parties to the complainant on 2.4.2012 Ex.O.P7. Further, the opposite parties in support of their version have placed on record Policy Schedule Ex.O.P4 (containing 3 pages) vide which it is mentioned that the Policy Term is 20 years, Premium Frequency Annual, Premium Paying Period is 20 years, Policy Installment Premium 49490/-, Policy Commencement Date 3.3.2011, Policy Expiry Date 2.3.2031, Last Premium Date 3.3.2030. So, from the perusal of the record it is established that the complainant Balraj Singh purchased the above said policy DLF Pramerica Assure Money+ bearing No. 000054468 on 3.3.2011 by paying premium of Rs. 50,000/-. But thereafter the complainant has failed to pay premium of the above said policy to the opposite parties as the premium was to be paid “annually” for the period upto 3.3.2030. Therefore, the above said policy 'lapsed'. The opposite parties have sent letters/notices Ex.O.P5 to Ex.O.P7 to the complainant for the payment of premium of the above said policy which is proved on the file. The Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties argued that the complainant himself signed the application form i.e. Ex.O.P4 and accept the conditions of policy.  

8. The opposite parties relied upon citation of Hon'ble National Commission in case titled Tata AIG Versus Gulzari Singh decided on 26.2.2010 vide which the Hon'ble Commission held that they are estopped from raising the ignorance or misrepresentation at all. It is also settled law by Hon'ble Apex Court in 2010 (1) Raj-514 (SC) that a person signing the document is presumed to be signed the same after understanding the contents thereof. 

9. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint has no merits and the same is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties free of costs by the District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to District Consumer Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       5th Day of July, 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President             

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member