Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/808

Ranjit Mehra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Exide Life Ins.Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Balraj Singh

28 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

       C.C. No: 808 of 27.11.2014

                                                                      Date of Decision:28.04.2015

 

Rajit Mehra son of Sh.Rakesh Mehra, r/o H.No.1099, Model Town, Chattar Singh Park, Ludhiana.

……Complainant

                                                    Versus

                                          

1.Exide Life Insurance Company Limited, S.C.O.16/17, 5th Floor, Fortune Chambers, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager/Authorized Representative.

2.Exide Life Insurance Company Limited, # 22, 5^th Floor, ING House, M.G.Road, Banglore, Karnatka-560001 through its Director/M.D./Authorized Representative.

                                                                             ……...Opposite Parties

        Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

         

Quorum:     Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President.                 

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.             

                   Ms.Babita, Member.

                 

Present:       Sh.Balraj Singh, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Shakti Jain, Adv. for Ops.

 

ORDER

 

R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be described as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Rajit Mehra(hereinafter in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against Exide Life Insurance Company Limited, S.C.O.16/17, 5th Floor, Fortune Chambers, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager/Authorized Representative and others(herein-after in short to be described as ‘Ops’)- directing them to refund the amount of Rs.10 lakh alongwith interest thereon besides Rs.2 lakh for the financial as well as mental harassment and cost of litigation and counsel fee to the complainant.

2.                 In brief, the case of the complainant is that in the month of March, 2012, the OP1 approached the complainant and told him that the Ops have launched a new scheme in the shape of Fixed deposit and as per which, the complainant has to invest the amount only in one time and the Ops will pay 10% interest on the said amount every year. Believing upon the assurance of Ops to the true, the complainant invested a sum of Rs.10 lakh with the Ops with the assurance that they will deliver the F.D.Certificate within few days. But after passing of many days, the complainant did not receive any certificate issued from Ops. Thereafter, the complainant immediately approached the OP1 but the Ops did not respond properly, rather prolonging the matter on one pretext or the other. Despite awaiting for a long period, Ops failed to provide any such certificate to the complainant. Finding no other alternative, on 2.7.2014, the complainant wrote a letter to the OP1 regarding non-receiving of document regarding the said FD. After receiving the said letter, the officials of Ops brought the information through email from company end and the Ops replied the complainant that said certificate has been received by some Jagtar Singh. However, there is no such person in the family of complainant in the name of Jagtar Singh and the complainant also apprised this fact to the Ops and also wrote letter to this effect on 7.7.2014. Thereafter, the Ops provided one cover note vide policy NO.02432097, which was received by the complainant on 19.7.2014 through registered post vide No.RK176568655IN dated 19.7.2014. But after receiving the said cover note, the complainant shocked to learn that the Ops did not invest the amount of complainant in any such Fixed Deposit Scheme. However, the Ops illegally and arbitrarily without the consent of the complainant invested the amount of complainant in a long term Insurance Policy. After reading the contents of the said policy, the complainant returned the said policy to the OP2 on 28.7.2014 through registered post dated 28.7.2014 as per your Clause of “Free Look Period”, in which, it is clearly established that in case, the complainant is not satisfied with the terms and conditions of policy, he can return his policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy and he is entitled to get back the whole amount from the Ops. The complainant also requested the Ops to return his complete invested amount as the Ops have taken the same under mis-representation. The complainant so many times visited the office of Ops and also wrote various letters/reminders and also got served a legal notice dated 30.10.2014 upon the Ops with the request to refund of his amount, to which, the Ops failed to do so. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, OPs were duly served and appeared through their counsel Sh.Shakti Jain, Advocate and filed their written reply, in which, they took up certain preliminary submissions and objections that the present complaint is not maintainable under law as the complainant is guilty of suppressing the material facts and pertinent facts relevant for the adjudication of the present complaint apart from filing a vexatious and frivolous complaint. The complainant had submitted a proposal for life insurance with them on 22.3.2012 proposing for “ING Star Life”(now called as Exide Life Star Life) a product offered by them which is approved by the Insurance Regulator-Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, (IRDA) a Statutory Body Created by an Act of Parliament . The features of the above-mentioned plan were explained in detail to the complainant and only after understanding the same in its entirety, the complainant had opted for the said plan. The premium chosen by the complainant was Rs.9,84,785.50/- for a sum assured of Rs.25,33,145/- alongwith a guaranteed Death Benefit of Rs.49,23,927/-. The complainant had to pay premium for 3 years and the life is covered for 12 years under the policy. The complainant had confirmed these facts and has given declaration in the proposal form dated 22.3.2012 and further, has also underwent medical examination as required for issuance of the policy. The contention of being under the impression that it was a fixed deposit is absolutely vague and baseless. The answering Ops do not deal with the provisions of Bank loans or fixed deposits as has been alleged by the complainant. The complainant with absolute understanding, duly consented to the terms and conditions of the present policy in question and is bound by the policy contract. No part of the proposal form, policy schedule, welcome letter or the terms and conditions make any mention with regard to the alleged provision of a fixed deposit to the complainant. The terms and conditions of the policy per se denote and reflect that the policy in question is a stand-alone insurance product and in no circumstances can be clubbed or combined with any additional non-insurance related benefits such as availing of personal loan or fixed deposit, as is the matter in this present case. In corroboration with the preceding proposition, a further direct and immediate inference can be drawn from the “Declaration” by the complainant that the acceptance of the terms and conditions of the policy in question was done with full understanding and clarity on the same and hence, the legality of the same cannot be questioned subsequently by the complainant. Further, no bank or financial institution would require a person to undergo medical examination for opening of a fixed deposit. Further, based on the answers, statements, premium amount, premium paying term opted and declarations made in the proposal form duly executed and submitted, answering Ops had issued a policy bearing No.02432097 on 30.3.2012 alongwith the terms and conditions governing the policy and a welcome letter via Bluedart Courier which was duly delivered to the complainant on 4.4.2012 at the address mentioned in the proposal form. Further, the complainant had earlier availed a life insurance policy from answering Ops in policy No.00239328 in the year 2005 which was subsequently surrendered by the complainant and it is to be noted that the address mentioned by the complainant in the said policy is the same as mentioned in policy No.02432097, as such, the contention of the complainant that he has not received the policy document at the said address is false as such denied. Further, as per the guidelines issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority under Regulation 6(2) of Protection of Policyholder’s Interest Regulation, “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 reasons for his/her objection within 15 days of the policy bond (Free Look Period). In such cases, the insurer is bound to deduct charges like duty, mortality charges etc., and refund the balance premium to the policy holder.” The said fact was also clearly intimated to his client in the Welcome Letter issued to him alongwith policy schedule. However, during the customer welcome calling made for the policy, complainant had not raised or registered any such concerns in relation to the issuance of this policy with them. Further, the complainant also failed to exercise his “Free Look Cancellation” option and did not revert back to them within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy bond. It was, therefore, presumed legally, that the complainant was duly satisfied with the policy, which is self-evident from the clause by not exercising the right of cancelling the policy within the “Free Look Period”. The complainant has only paid the initial premium and subsequent to that has failed to pay the renewal premiums even after repeated reminders, as such, the policy moved into the lapsed status. Surprisingly, the complainant all of a sudden and after a lapse of more than 2 years in the month of July, 2014 approached the answering Ops stating that he has not received the policy document which is absolutely vague and baseless for the sole reason that the claim of non-receipt of policy bond was made after a lapse of more than 2 years and nothing prevented the complainant to raise the issue of non-receipt of policy bond in 2012 or thereafter. The complainant subsequently, on the receipt of the duplicate policy bond, made a request for Free Look Cancellation of the policy alleging mis-selling of the policy on 28.7.2014. However, the same was rejected on the ground that the same was out of freelook period. The same was communicated to the complainant vide letter dated 3.9.2014. Subsequently, the complainant sent the legal notice which was duly replied with the aforesaid contentions. The insurance company are custodians of public money and are regulated by IRDA under strict norms and are bound to cancel the policy within 15 days of receipt of original policy bond. In the present case, the complainant has approached the answering Ops after lapse of more than 2 years after the receipt of the original policy bond as such, the same cannot be cancelled. The answering Ops have never acted contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy as agreed and entered between the parties. Hence, denying all other allegations made by the complainant against the answering Ops, made prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                In order to prove the case of the complainant, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12, whereas, on the other hand, in order to rebut the case of the complainant, learned counsel for the OPs adduced evidence by placing on record affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Chetan.P, its General Manager-Legal alongwith documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP4 and annexure-E.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record on the file very carefully.

6.                Perusal of the record reveals that it is an undisputed fact between the parties that the complainant had invested Rs.10 lakh witj the Ops. As per the allegations of the complainant that the OP1 had assured the complainant that they will deliver the F.D.Certificate within few days. However, after passing of many times, OP1 did not deliver the same to the complainant and the complainant continued to approach with the OP1 with the request to deliver the F.D.Certificate. However, the complainant had received the reply that said certificate has been received by some Jagtar Singh. There is no such person in the family of the complainant in the name of Jagtar Singh.

7.                On the other hand, there is specific plea of the Ops that the policy was delivered to the complainant at his given address, of which, earlier policy was delivered in the year 2005. There is specific plea of the Ops that the complainant has only paid the initial premium and subsequent to that he has failed to pay the renewal premiums even after repeated reminders and as such, the policy moved into the lapsed status. Now, the complainant all of a sudden and after a lapse of more than 2 years in the month of July 2014, approached the Ops stating that he has not received the policy document which is absolutely vague and baseless for the sole reason that the claim of non-receipt of the policy bond was made after a lapse of more than 2 years and nothing prevented the complainant to raise the issue of non-receipt of the policy bond in 2012 or thereafter.

8.                As per the claim of the complainant, the complainant made payment of Rs.10 lakh to the Ops for investment in the month of March, 2012. Perusal of the letters Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 which were sent by the complainant to the Ops in the year 2014 i.e. Ex.C3 on 7.7.2014 and Ex.C4 on 19.9.2014. However, the complainant has not placed on record any documents or letters, from which, it could be presumed that the complainant ever approached the Ops for in the year 2012 after making the payment in March, 2012 with the request that the complainant has not received the policy documents or F.D.Certificate, for which, he had invested the money. So, it appears from the evidence of the parties that though, the complainant has invested the money in the year 2012 but he did not come forward to make efforts to receive the policy documents from the Ops, if he had not received the same within the stipulated period of 15 days. Rather, the complainant had approached the Ops in September, 2014 when the policy had already lapsed.

9.                Though, the complainant did not exercise his option to cancel the policy within the free look period of 15 days. Even then it is a well settled principle of law that whole of the amount of premium cannot be forfeited. Rather, the complainant is entitled to surrender value the policy as per the terms and conditions of the policy as and when he surrenders the policy.

10.              In view of the above discussion, we hereby allow this complaint and as a result, we hereby direct the complainant to surrender the policy on the prescribed application Form of surrender within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter, Ops are directed to revive the policy of the complainant after considering the request of surrender of the policy and to settle and pay the surrender value of the policy of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy within 30 days from the date of receipt of surrender request from the complainant, failing which, Ops are liable to pay interest @9% p.a. from the date of request of surrender till its realization. Further, Ops are directed to pay Rs.25,000/-(Twenty Five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) as litigation costs to the complainant. Compliance of order qua compensation and litigation costs be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

           

(Babita)                (Sat Paul Garg)              (R.L.Ahuja)

Member                  Member                       President.   

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:28.04.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.