Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/198/2016

Arun Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Deepak Aggarwal

06 Nov 2017

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/198/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	21/03/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	06/11/2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arun Kumar, resident of House No. 282, Ram Darbar, Phase-2, Chandigarh.

…….Complainant

 

Vs

 

(1)  Exide Life Insurance Company Limited (formerly ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Limited), through its Director, having its Registered and Corporate Office 3^rd Floor, J.P. Techno Park No.3/1, Millers Road, Bengaluru – 560001.

 

(2)  Branch Head, Exide Life Insurance Company Limited (formerly ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Limited), SCO No. 341-342, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

 

(3)  Bajaj Capital Insurance Broking Limited, through its Director, SCO No.341-342, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

 

 ….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:    MRS. SURJEET KAUR               PRESIDING MEMBER

           MRS. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA       MEMBER

 

 

Present:      Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Counsel for Complainant.

            Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.

Sh. Mohit Rana, Proxy Counsel for

Sh. Gopal Sharma, Counsel for OP No.3.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

1.          Briefly stated, enticed by the assurance made by the representatives of the Opposite Parties that in order to collect the cash prize of Rs.30,000/- won by his son in Kids Kontest conducted by Exide Life Insurance, the Complainant deposited Rs.12,500/- at the office of Opposite Party No.2. Subsequent to the same, a Policy document was received by the Complainant on or about 30/31.10.2015, with Policy No. 03175982. Finding that there was no condition in the policy wherein Complainant was entitled to any reward etc., he wrote to the Opposite Parties on 03.11.2015 to cancel the policy and arrange for refund of Rs.12,500/- including refund of cash prize of Rs.30,000/-. In response thereto, the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 13.11.2015 rejected the request of the Complainant being beyond the free look period of 15 days. Hence, the present Complaint.  

 

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.          Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in their joint reply, maintained that the Policy opted by the Complainant is Exide Life New Fulfilling Life Plan bearing No. 03175982 for a sum assured of Rs.1,10,000/- with an initial premium of Rs.12,500/-. The risk under the policy commenced on 31.08.2015. The policy document was dispatched to the Complainant’s mailing address along with welcome letter dated 22.09.2015. It is pleaded that after the lapse of free look period of 15 days i.e. after 1 month 4 days from date of receipt of policy bond, Complainant had approached the answering Opposite Parties and submitted request dated 03.11.2015 for cancelling his policy alleging mis-selling. Since the request was beyond the free look period of 15 days, the same was rejected vide letter dated 13.11.2015. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.          Opposite Party No.3 in its reply, maintained that it only acted as an insurance broker and the role/ responsibility/ liability to release the deposited premium amount lies with the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.3 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.          The Complainant filed Rejoinder wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties have been controverted.

 

6.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

7.          We have the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.  

 

8.          Admittedly, the Complainant had subscribed for Exide Life New Fulfilling Life Plan, with an initial proposal deposit of Rs.12,500/- with date of commencement as 21.09.2015 with regular yearly mode of payment of premium for a term of 16 years, for a basic sum assured of Rs.1,10,464/-. The aforesaid premium was duly remitted by the Complainant, which is evident from the first premium receipt. The Complainant himself is the life assured in the aforesaid Policy.

 

9.          The main grouse of the Complainant against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 is with regard to non-refunding of the premium paid towards the insurance policy in question, despite making such a request within the free look period as mandated under the policy.

 

10.        The Complainant claims that through the insurance policy received by him, he came to know about the mis-selling as the key features of the policy, were not explained by the Representatives of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant, while exercising his option of free look in period, had applied for the refund of premium amount, within fifteen days’ time, as the insurance policy was received at his end on 30/31.10.2015 and cancellation request was made vide letter dated 03.11.2015 (Annexure C-3), which was duly received by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, as is evident from the postal receipts Annexure C-4 & C-5, thus, qualifying himself for the refund of the premium amount, as per the terms & conditions, applicable to such a request.  

 

11.        The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, while defending themselves, have categorically stated that the Policy document raised in the name of the Complainant on 31.08.2015, was dispatched to his registered mailing address along with welcome letter dated 22.09.2015 and since the Complainant did not approach them within free look period, therefore, his request for cancellation was rightly rejected vide letter dated 13.11.2015.

 

12.        It would not be out of place to quote clause 4(6) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests) Regulations, 2002, which clearly deals with the aspect of delivery of the policy document at the end of the Complainant within 15 days from the receipt of the proposal. Clause 4(6) reads as under:-

 

4.      Proposal for insurance

       

 

 X      xxxxx           xxxxx         xxxxx  

 X                 xxxxx           xxxxx

 

(6)     Proposals shall be processed by the insurer with speed and efficiency and all decisions thereof shall be communicated by it in writing within a reasonable period not exceeding 15 days from receipt of proposals by the insurer.”

 

          However, bare reading of the proposal form shows that the proposal was made on 31.08.2015, which was within the mandated fifteen days period, but the provision with regard to its communication to the Complainant has not been proved by the Opposite Parties bringing on record any document from its custody which could satisfy us that the insurance policy was received by the Complainant at his registered address.

 

13.        Though the Opposite Parties have stood their ground of the delivery of the policy document at the Complainant’s end, but at the same did not bring any cogent proof to substantiate its stand. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case titled as “Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Charan Dass” (Revision Petition No. 1324 of 2012), decided on 01.08.2012, has held that the onus to prove the delivery of the policy document lay at the door of the insurance company. Hence, in the absence of any such proof, the version of the Opposite Parties in this regard is hollow and deserves no merit. We also feel that the free look period of fifteen days starts to run from the date from the policy document comes in the hands of the Complainant. In the present case, the receipt of the copy at the end of the Complainant is to be believed as the date of receipt of the policy document and the request of the complaint dated 30/31.10.2015 is definitely within the free look period and the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 ought to consider the same and refund the premium to the Complainant, on the terms & conditions, applicable to the free look period.

 

14.        In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2 are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are directed:-

 

[a]  To refund the premium amount to the Complainant (minus) the mandatory deductions applicable to the free look period, alone;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.7,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[c] To pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

          The complaint against Opposite Party No.3 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

15.        The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above, apart from cost of litigation mentioned in sub-para [c] above, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid. 

 

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

 

Announced

06^th November,2017.                                              

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

“Dutt”