Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/16/2020

Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Paras Ram Chauhan - Opp.Party(s)

Karandeep Singh Cheema, Gaurav Bhardwaj & Parneet S Bhangu Adv.

22 Apr 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

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

Appeal No	:	A/16/2020
Date  of  Institution	:	16/01/2020
Date   of   Decision	:	22/04/2022

 

 

 

 

 

1.    M/s Bharti AXA Life Insurance Co. Limited, Unit 601 & 602, 6^th Floor, Floor Raheja Titanium, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai, through its MD/ Authorized Representatives.

 

     (The present registered office address of the company is at Unit No.1904, 19^th Floor, Parinee Crescenzo, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, BKC Road, Opposite MCA Club, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400051).

 

2.    Mr. Tinku Puniyani, Associate Manager – Distributor and Branch Operations, M/s Bharti AXA Life Insurance Co. Limited, SCO 208-209, 2^nd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

 

….Appellants

 

V E R S U S

 

 

1.    Dr. Paras Ram Chauhan, Resident of H.No.92/10, Handeti Purana Bazar, Sunder Nagar, Mandi (H.P).

 

…… Respondent/Complainant

 

2.    HDFC Bank Limited, Bank House, 28, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its MD/ Authorized Representative.

 

…… Respondent/ Opposite Party No.3

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI    PRESIDENT

MRS. PADMA PANDEY            MEMBER

          MR. RAJESH K. ARYA           MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for Appellants.
		Sh. Sahil Khunger, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
		Sh. H.S. Kathpal, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

 

 

This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.11.2019 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (now, District Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh), vide which, it partly allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing no. CC/681/2017, which reads as under:-

“12.  In view of the above discussion, the present consumer Complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed qua OPs 1 & 2. OPs 1 & 2 are directed as under: -

1. to refund the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 25.2.2014 till realization.
2. to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him.
3. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant as costs of litigation.   

132.  This order be complied with by OPs 1 & 2 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr. No. (i) & (ii) above, with interest @12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr. No.(iii) above.

2.      Before the District Commission-I, it was the case of the Respondent/Complainant that in the year 2011 he had obtained a life insurance policy from Appellants/OPs No.1 & 2 on payment of yearly premium. His case was, on 25.02.2014, he had paid premium using his credit card (of Respondent/OP No.3 Bank) by IVR and the payment was confirmed at the same time. However, the employees of Appellants/OPs No.1 & 2 declined to issue the receipt and later on, denied any such amount was transferred in their account. Subsequent thereto, various e-mails/ correspondence were exchanged, but Appellants/OPs No.1 & 2 had not issued the receipt and denied to have received the payment of the premium of the year 2014-2015. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the District Commission-I, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Appellants/OPs.

 

3.      In the reply filed before the District Commission-I, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, the Appellants/OPs No.1 & 2 pleaded that the Policy cannot now be cancelled as in the year 2011 free-look period of 15 days was afforded to the Respondent/Complainant to go through the contents and get it cancelled if he so wishes. However, it was not done and hence, the Respondent/Complainant cannot get the Policy cancelled and claim for the entire refund. References to various precedents were also made. On merits, Appellants/OPs No.1 & 2 denied any such premium was received by them as it was a third party payment service and is not directly connected to the Appellants/OPs No.1 & 2. On these lines, the cause was sought to be defended. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Appellants/OPs No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

 

4.      Respondent/Opposite Party No.3 (HDFC Bank Ltd.) did not contest the Consumer Complaint as notice sent to it by Registered Post was not received back served or unserved. Since period of more than 30 days had elapsed, therefore, Respondent/Opposite Party No.3 was presumed to have been served and vide order dated 22.11.2017 it was proceeded ex-parte.    

 

5.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, Ld. District Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh partly allowed the Complaint of the Respondent/Complainant as noticed in the opening para of this order.     

 

6.      Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. District Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/ OPs No.1 & 2.

 

7.      We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care, along with the written arguments advanced on behalf of the parties.

 

8.      After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

9.      On going through the records, we find that the main allegation is that the premium of Rs.1.00 lakh was transferred from the credit card account of the Complainant with Respondent/OP-3 Banker in the account of Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 against the Policy. The claimed date of payment of premium is 25.02.2014. The Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 had submitted a simple denial to these allegations that no such amount was received. However, Complainant’s/Respondent’s credit card statement (Annexure C-1) clearly indicates that Rs.1.00 lakh was transferred to Bharti AXA Life Insurance i.e. Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. Inspite of several opportunities being given to Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 they did not produce on record the statement of their account with their Banker showing that on 25.02.2014 an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh was not credited in their account after being debited from the account of the Respondent/ Complainant. This shows deficiency writ large on the face of the Appellants. Needless to say, said insurance policy then, could not have been cancelled because the free-look period had already elapsed. In nutshell, the Ld. District Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh had dealt with all the above said deficiencies threadbare and partly allowed the Complaint, which we feel does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

 

10.      No other point was urged by the Counsel for the Parties.

 

11.      In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. District Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed.

 

12.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

13.      The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

22^nd April, 2022                                    

Sd/-

                                  (RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

                                  (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER