District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 324/2021.
Date of Institution:08.07.2021.
Date of Order:18.4.2023.
Krishna Devi W/o Shri Surajpal r/o H.No. 198, Main Road, Sector-24, Ram Swaroop colony, Mujessar, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Exide Life Insurance Company Ltd., SCO-99, Main Market Road, Near ICICI Bank, HUDA Staff Colony, Sector-16, Faridabad – 121002 through its Managing Director/Director/Authorised Signatory.
2. Rahul Singh – Branch Manager, Exide Life Insurance Company Ltd., SCO-99, Main Market Road, Near ICICI bank, HUDA Staff Colony, Sector-16, Faridabad -121002.
3. Mr. Manjeet Singh – Manager, Exide Life Insurance Company Ltd., SCO-99, Main Market Road, Near ICICI Bank, HUDA Staff Colony, Sector-16, Faridabad – 121002.
4. Shri Bhan – Agent, Manager of Exide Life Insurance Company Ltd.,
SCO-99, Main Market Road, Near ICICI Bank, HUDA Staff Colony, Sector-16, Faridabad – 121002.
…Opposite parties
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Sushil Rawat , counsel for the complainant.
Sh. R.K.Bhati , counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 to 3.
Opposite party No.4 become proforma opposite party on 22.08.2022.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the opposite party No.4 who introduced himself was the agent of the opposite party No.1 and approached the complainant and allured that the opposite party No.1 launched a better life insurance scheme and also assured that the payment tenure of the said policy was only for one time pay policy term 10 years and further assured that after completion of policy they would pay better interest 8-9% for 5 years to the complainant. After assurance and allurement of opposite party No.4, complainant was ready to obtain the said policy and deposited an amount of Rs.3,20,000/-. At the time of issuing policy, the representative of the opposite parties assured the policy tenure was only for 10 years and also verbally assured that after completion of the policy the company would refund the deposited amount with interest @ 8-9% p.a. Thereafter the opposite parties called the complainant for pay the next premium of the policy, complainant approached the opposite party No.4 that he assured that as per policy complainant paid only one time. Now the complainant came to know that the opposite parties Nos.1 to 4 in collusion and conspired with each other by playing fraud, cheating and deception by way of misrepresentation changed the policy and also came to know all of the opposite aprties had also made the signature of the complainant on some printed papers alongwith proposal form with wrong contact number of complainant. Except above in the proposal form the opposite parties also signed a person namely Manoj Gupta as a witness while the complainant had not know Manoj Gupta, she never met with him. The complainant was illetrate housewife and the complainant could not read or write except only know how to sign even. The complainant was a senior citizen lady and invested her entire savings to the opposite parties and the complainant had no other source of income. Thereafter the complainant contacted the concerned officers/officials of the office of the opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 and requested several times telephonically, as well as personnel visits or through email dated 23.03.2021 to refund the deposited amount of Rs.3,20,000/- with interest from the date of deposit, but there was no satisfactory response from the opposite parties, however the concerned officer/official avoided to accede to the legitimate request of the complainant on one pretext or the other. The complainant sent legal notice dated 11.6.2021to the opposite parties through registered post but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) refund the deposited amount of Rs.3,20,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of withhold.
b) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite part refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the policy the complainant was provided a freelook period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy to cancel the policy in case there was any discrepancies in the policy. It was submitted that the answering opposite parties as per clause 4(1) and 6(2) of the IRDA Regulations, 2002, sent the policy and the policy documents alongwith the copy of the proposal form, policy schedule, welcome letter and terms and conditions applicable to the policy to the complainant giving her an opportunity to review/cancel the policy within freelook period. In the present case, the policy documents were delivered on the registered address of the complainant through registered post via Airway Bill No. RD772142223IN and the same was received by the complainant admittedly as on dispute of not receiving the policy documents had been raised by the complainant. Despite receipt of the policy terms and the copy of the proposal form, the complainant failed to approach the answering opposite parties within freelook period making any grievance with respect to the proposal form or the terms of the policy implying that the terms and conditions of the policy were in order. It was submitted that the complainant remained silent for 3 and half years and never approached the company for any discrepancies in the policy within the freelook period. Thus itself creates doubt to ay prudent person on genuineness of the present complaint. Therefore, the complainant was now stopped from raising any grievance or issue relating to the policy or seek refund of the premium paid or any interest under the policy. The complainant was bound by the policy contract and was deemed to have given up/waived his rights by not exercising the freelook provision. It was submitted that the proposal form was duly filled and signed by the complainant. Further Section III of the proposal form clearly mentions all the plan details (including the plans, premium paying terms, policy terms and premium installment amounts) and the same were within the complete knowledge of the complainant at the time of filling up the proposal form. The complainant with her absolute understanding duly consented to the terms and conditions of the present policy in question and was bound by the same. The complainant was duly informed that the premium amount would be Rs.3,20,000/- on annual basis for a period of 15 years and the policy terms was also 15 years. In the first premium receipt also it had been categorically mentioned that the next regular premium was due on 22.06.2018 which implies that the complainant was required to pay the premium on yearly basis for a period of 15 years. By signing the documents, she had accepted the contents of the documents. Opposite parties denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Counsel for the complainant has made a statement on 22.08.2022 that “I want to make OP No.4 M/s. Shri Bhan-Agent Manager of Exide Life Insurance company Limited as proforma respondent. Accordingly, opposite party No.4 was proforma opposite party vide order dated 22.08.2022.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties- Exide Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Others with the prayer to: a) refund the deposited amount of Rs.3,20,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of withhold. b)pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Krishna Devi. photocopies of policy, alongwith terms & conditions,, proposal form, plan summary, Adhaar card, letter dated 23.02.2021, letter dated 25.02.2021.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties – Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Chidanand. P.Deputy General Manager-Legal of exide Life Insurance Company Ltd., having its Corporate Office at 3rd floor JP Techno Park, NO.3/1, Millers Road, Bengaluru, Ex.R-1 – policy, ex.R-2 – terms and conditions, Ex.R-3 - letter dated 25.02.2021,, Ex.R-4 – letter dated 25.03.2021,, Ex.R-5 – reply to legal notice.
7. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that in this case date of issuance of policy is 23.06.2017 and the date of filing of complaint is 8.07.2021. The difference of issuance of policy and date of filing the complaint is 4 years.
8. Keeping in view of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is disposed off with the direction to opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 to deduct the 15% as administrative charges from the paid amount and pay the remaining amount to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 are also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 18.04.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
