BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

Harbans Singh resident of House No.2251, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                V E R S U S

1.  DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Company Limited, 4^th floor, Building No.9, Tower B, Cyber City, DLF City, Phase II, Gurgaon-122002 through its Regional Manager/Director.

2.  Branch Head, DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.335-336, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

                    ……Opposite Parties

CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL               PRESIDENT

        SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL      MEMBER

Argued by:   Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Counsel for the complainant.

               Sh.Daman Dhir, Counsel for the OPs

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

        Briefly stated, the complainant opted to invest Rs.51,000/- as single premium against DLF Pramerica Dhan Suraksha Policy of OPs, but on receipt of policy document (Ann.C-1) on 19.8.2011, it was found to the contrary to the projections made by OPs as well as having annual frequency for 20 years instead of single premium plan.  Therefore, the complainant vide letter dated 2.9.2011 (Ann.C-2 & C-3), sent through post Ann.C-4 & C-5, requested the OPs to cancel his policy and refund the premium amount.  But the OPs, instead of cancelling the policy and refund the premium amount, issued another policy, which too was returned to the OPs, within two days vide letter dated 3.10.2011 (Ann.C-7) through regd. post. Thereafter, complainant sent reminders, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint.

2]      OPs filed joint reply, stating therein, that the complainant himself opted the policy with regular premium of Rs.51,000/- for a term of 20 years. It is also stated that in the welcome letter, sent to the complainant, it was clearly mentioned that in case, he was dissatisfied with the terms & conditions of the policy, he should return it within 15 days of it receipt and cancelled the same, but the cancellation request of the complainant was received by the OPs on 5.9.2011, which was beyond the free look period of 15 days. It is further stated that due to technical error in the system, the said policy was wrongly cancelled.  But when the error was identified, the policy was reinstated in the system, but it created a new policy having number 000087108 with same policy features & benefits against the previous policy number 000079258.  This was also intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 13.1.2012. It was informed to the complainant that the OPs would not be able to cancel and provide refund for the policy No. 000087108 as the fresh policy was issued in lieu of policy No. 000079258, for which cancellation request was raised beyond the free look period. Rest of the allegations have been denied with a request to dismiss the complaint.

3]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]      We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5]      The contention of the complainant is that he purchased Policy No.000079258 – DLF Pramerica Dhan Suraksha Policy, from OPs on payment of a premium of Rs.51,000/- (Ann.C-1), which he received on 19.8.2011.  On being dissatisfied with the terms & conditions of the policy, he requested the OPs vide letters dated 02.09.2011 (Ann.C-2 & C-3), well within 15 days of free look period, for refund of premium amount, but they instead issued another policy. It is also contended that even the second policy, was returned well within 15 days of receipt, along with request for refund of the premium amount, but the OPs did refunded the amount.

6]      The ld.Counsel for the OPs argued that the OPs received the cancellation request of the complainant only on 5.9.2011, which was beyond the free look period of 15 days. He further contended that due to technical error in the system, the said policy was wrongly cancelled, but on indentifying the mistake, the same policy with another number was issued.

7]      We do not find any merit in the contention of ld.Counsel for OPs.

8]      It is admitted that the policy in question was delivered to the complainant on 19.8.2011.  The complainant had sent his request to the OPs for refund of premium vide letters dated 2.9.2011 (Ann.C-2 & C-3) through post vide postal receipts Ann.C-4 & C-5, well within a period of 15 days of free look period. The contention of the OPs that they received the cancellation request after the expiry of free look period is not sustainable.

9]      Further, the plea of the OPs, that the said policy was wrongly cancelled, due to technical error, is untenable. The issuance of a new policy with another number in the name of complainant, based on the same/old proposal form, is illegal & unjustified.

10]     In view of the above discussion & findings, we are of the opinion that the act & conduct of the OPs amounts to gross deficiency in service as well as their indulgence into unfair trade practice.  We, therefore, allow this complaint.  The OPs are directed to refund the premium amount of Rs.51,000/-.  They are also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation as well as Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs.

        This order be complied with by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of its receipt, failing which the OPs shall be liable to pay the above awarded amount of Rs.71,000/- along with penal interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 18.1.2012 till its actual payment, besides paying litigation costs.  

        Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.  The file be consigned.