Punjab

Sangrur

CC/774/2015

Ajaib Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Exide LIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ramit Pathak

12 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  774

                                                Instituted on:    03.08.2015

                                                Decided on:       12.05.2016

 

Ajaib Singh Sarao son of S. Raghbir Singh, Resident of House No.48, Mubarak Mehal Colony, Near Civil Hospital, Sangrur (Punjab).

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.     Exide Life Insurance Company Limited, Regd. Office, 3^rd Floor, JP Techno Park No.3/1 Millers Road, Bengaluru-560001 through its MD/Chairman/Authorised signatory.

2.     Excide Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, SCO No.11, Second Floor, Chhoti Barandari, Patiala through its Branch Manager/ Authorised Signatory.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Ramit Pathak, Adv.

For OPs                    :       Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Shri Ajaib Singh Sarao, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant took two policies from ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Limited, but instead of issuing the single premium policy, they issued traditional policies to the complainant, as such, he requested the ING Vysya Life Insurance Co. for refund of the amount of the premium, but it refused to do so.  It is further averred that the complainant filed complaint before this Forum on 21.5.2014 seeking relief of cancellation of the policies in question and to refund the amount and the complaint was accepted and order for cancellation of the policies was passed. Thereafter, the ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Limited went in appeal against the order dated 21.5.2014, where it was compromised that the ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Limited will convert the policies to single premium policy for one year duration. It is further averred that ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Limited company has now become Exide Life Insurance Company Limited. It is further averred that accordingly the complainant received two policy documents bearing number 03057883 and 03057879, which were for the period of ten years.  The complainant immediately visited the office of OP number 2 for returning the policies within the free look period on 26.5.2015, which were duly received by the OPs.  Further case of the complainant is that the Ops refunded the amount of premium under policy number 03057883 and cancelled the policy, but the Ops did not refund the amount under policy number 03057879, rather issued a letter dated 9.6.2015 through which the OPs refused to do so without showing any cause. It has been further stated that thereafter the complainant received another letter dated 25.6.2015 refusing to cancel the policy number 03057879 on the ground of settlement in the court. But, the case of the complainant is that if one policy can be cancelled at the request of the complainant, then it is not open for the Ops to withheld the amount under another policy.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to cancel the policy number 03057879 and to refund the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OPs, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the present complaint is false, malicious and incorrect and the complaint is filed with malafide intention and is nothing but the abuse of process of law. It has been stated that the policy in question was issued under settlement in execution number 82 of 2014 in lieu of order passed in the Forum in complaint number 454 dated 14.10.2013 decided on 21.5.2014, therefore, the complainant cannot avail the benefit of free look period of 15 days, that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum, that the complainant is not a consumer and that the complainant has failed to set up nexus between the damages claimed in the present complaint. On merits, it is stated that in fact complainant obtained two policies bearing number 02646702 and 02646708 on 29.03.2013 and 28.03.2013, respectively for Rs.3.00 Lacs each for the period of ten years.  It has been denied that the complainant opted for single premium policies. It is admitted that the complainant filed the complaint before this Forum, which was allowed and further matter was referred in the appeal number 1064 of 2014 before the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, where a settlement took place between the complainant and the Ops, where it was agreed to issue fresh policies of single premium in lieu of the policies bearing number 02646702 and 02646708 of the same amount without any deduction. Again the complainant submitted the proposal form after admitting the contents and thereafter the policies bearing number 03057883 and 03057879 were issued to the complainant. It has been denied that after receipt of the policies the complainant surprised to see that single premium policy was issued instead of 10 years. It is further stated that the complainant with malafide intention submitted the request for cancellation of the policy though the fact that the complainant cannot avail the benefit of free look period and the premium of policy baring number 03057883 was inadvertently refunded due to over sight. It is stated that the policy bearing number 03057879 cannot be cancelled in view of the compromise. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of acknowledgement, Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-4 copies of receipts, Ex.C-5 copy of letter dated 9.6.2015, Ex.C-6 copy of letter dated 23.6.2015, Ex.C-7 copy of letter dated 25.6.2015, Ex.C-8 copy of accounts statement, Ex.C-9 copy of policy, Ex.C-10 copy of policy, Ex.C-11 copy of order dated 12.12.2015, Ex.C-12 copy of policy, Ex.C-13 copy of acknowledgement and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of policy bond, Ex.OP-3 copy of order dated 28.1.2015, Ex.OP-4 copy of statement of Shri Ramit Pathak and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact on record that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by getting two policies bearing numbers 03057883 and 03057879 on 25.5.2015.  The case of the complainant is that after receipt of the policies in question, the complainant found that the same were for the period of ten years, whereas at the time of compromise/issuance of the insurance policies, it was told that the same will be for the period of one year, as such, the complainant chose to get the policies cancelled and sent the same to the OPs within the free look period of 15 days as admitted by the Ops in their written reply.  It is worth mentioning here that the OPs though cancelled the policy bearing number 03057883 and refunded the amount of Rs.2,99,874.60 on 12.06.2015 in the account of the complainant by transfer, as is evident from the copy of accounts statement, which is on record as Ex.C-8. But, the other policy bearing number 03057879 was not cancelled saying that the same was issued under settlement in execution number 82 of 2014 in lieu of order passed by the Forum in complaint number 454 dated 14.10.2013 decided on 21.5.2014, as such, the complainant cannot avail the benefit of free look period of 15 days, as such, it is contended that the complainant has filed the present complaint with malafide intention.  We have also perused the copy of the order dated 12.12.2015 passed by the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission in Appeal number 1064 of 2014, wherein it has been mentioned that the matter has been compromised with the complainant and withdrew the appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission.  But, we may mention that what was the compromise effected between the parties has not been placed on record by the Ops or any such statement is there on record.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they withheld such a compromise, if any, taken place between them. The Ops in their evidence has produced the affidavit of Chandan Shop as Ex.OP-1, but there is no explanation in the affidavit that why they did not cancel the policy in question bearing number 03057879 more so when, the same carries the free look period clause of 15 days, whereby it was open for the complainant to get the policy cancelled. There is no mention in the policy about the compromise, as such, we feel that it is a new policy and has no nexus with the previous policies, if any.   In the circumstances of the case, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the OPs are directed to cancel the policy bearing number 03057879 and to refund the proceeds thereof.      

 

6.             In the light of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to cancel the policy bearing number 03057879 and to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 3.8.2015 till realisation. The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

7.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                May 12, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member