DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Vishal Jain s/o Sh. V.K. Jain, resident of H.No.404 GHS-4, Sector 20, Panchkula.

              ---Complainant

Vs

DLF Premica Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Gurgaon, through Manager Servicing Branch, 2^nd Floor SCO No. 335-336, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

---- Opposite Party

BEFORE:    SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA             PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA               MEMBER

           SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. V.K. Jain, Counsel for Complainant.

Opposite Party Ex-parte.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.        The instant complaint relates to alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the Opposite Party for not refunding the amount received by them against an insurance policy subscribed for by the Complainant.

          Factually speaking, the Complainant had subscribed for an insurance policy from the Opposite Party. He has stated that the term of the policy was 05 years with payment Rs.20,000/- per year and accrual benefit of Rs.24,000/- per year. He has also stated that the amount would become Rs.2.2 lacs after 05 years. The Complainant has further stated that the Agent who sold the policy did not disclose the material facts of the policy and hence, the contract of insurance could be concluded only when the party to whom it was made had accepted it unconditionally. Silence does not denote consent.

          The Complainant received the policy document issued by the Opposite Party on 3.9.2011. On perusal of the document, the Complainant noticed that the policy was not beneficial and the terms & conditions were different the ones told by the agent. As the policy was not acceptable to him, and it contained a provision that if the client was not satisfied, he could return the policy and claim refund. Refund was claimed on 20.8.2012, but the Opposite Party refused to make payment, as it was beyond the free look period of 15 days. The Complainant also issued a legal notice to the Opposite Party on 20.9.2012, asking for the payment, but the amount has not been paid. The Complainant has thus filed the present complaint with a prayer that the Opposite Party be made liable to refund the illegally charged amount of Rs.20,000/-, along with litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/-. The Complainant has attached all relevant documents, including the policy and legal notice.  

2.        Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking their version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte on 15.01.2013.

3.        Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

4.        We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant and have perused the record.

5.        The grievance of the Complainant relates to non-refund of the premium paid by the Opposite Party despite request by him. Annexure P-2 is the covering note of the Policy, wherein it has been stated 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.”

          Annexure P-4 is the letter dated 17.10.2012 from the Opposite Party, wherein it has been mentioned that after the Complainant received the policy document, the OP-company had made a welcome call to the Complainant on 17.9.2011 to confirm the status of the policy received. But the Complainant has made a request for cancelation of the policy on 4.9.2012 which is over one year after receipt of policy quoting reasons as non-disclosure of material facts. The OP-company has responded vide letter dated 14.9.2012 rejecting his request as it was well outside the free look period.

6.        We also feel that denial by the Opposite Party for refund is not wrong in accordance with the terms & conditions of the policy, especially when request for refund has not been made by the Complainant within the free look period.  

7.        Hence, finding no merit in the complaint, we dismiss it with no order as to costs. However, the Policy will continue to be alive as per terms/on payment of regular premiums and the Complainant can request for surrender value as per terms & conditions, whenever he wishes.

8.        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

29^th January, 2013                                             

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

“Dutt”