Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/768

BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

GURMIT SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

24 Jan 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision: 24.01.2017

First Appeal No. 768/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 17.07.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 631/2010 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East) Convenient Shopping Centre: Saini Enclave: Delhi-92)

In the matter of:

Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd.

One India Bulls Centre, Tower-1

15^TH Floor, Jupiter Mill Compound 841

SenapatiBapatMarg, Elphinstone Road

Mumbai-400013                                              .........Appellant

 

Versus

 

Gurmit Singh

R/o 32 E, Rani Garden

Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110031                    ..........Respondent

                                                                  

CORAM

N P KAUSHIK                         -                  Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                   Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                  Yes

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1.         Present appeal has been filed against the orders dated 17.07.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum (East) Saini Enclave Delhi-110092. Vide impugned orders, Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd. (appellant herein) was directed to refund to the complainant Sh. Gurmit Singh an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the orders.
2.         In brief, the complainant Sh. Gurmit Singh admittedly took a policy from Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP).He paid an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-.Receipt for the said amount Rs. 1,00,000/- was issued.Policy bond wasdespatchedto the address of the complainant.
3.         Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned here that the abovesaid policy was taken by the complainant through an agent Ms. Pooja. Ms. Pooja after sometime informed the complainant that his policy had lapsed due to non-payment. Complainant lodged a complaint against Ms. Pooja with the manager of the OP. Upon complaint, manager assured the complainant revival of the policy. It was not revived.
4.         Defence raised by the OP was that the complainant had submitted an application for the purchase of gold plus II policy. The same was filled up by the complainant in his own handwriting. The sum assured was Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty Lacs Only) and complainant opted for quarterly premium mode. Complainant was given an opportunity of reviving the policy after deposit of an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- upto 25.01.2009.
5.         A controversy arose between the parties. Contention of the complainant is that Ms. Pooja had represented to him that after paying Rs. 1,00,000/-, he was required to pay Rs. 10,000/- each in the subsequent two years. On the contrary, contention of the OP is that after payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- initially complainant was required to pay Rs. 10,000/- quarterly for the period of three years from the inception of the policy. Ld. District Forum in the ends of justice directed the OP to refund the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- within a period of thirty days after receipt of the orders. Ld. District Forum also observed that there was no ‘deficiency of service’ on the part of the OP.
6.         I have heard at length the arguments addressed by the counsel for the OP/appellant Ms. GauriJasana Advocate and the complainant/respondent Sh. Gurmit Singh.
7.         Ld. District Forum passed the impugned orders on the premise that the complainant himself had filled up the form and signed the same. In its affidavit OP has stated that the complainant made a declaration to the effect that the terms and conditions of the policy were made clear to him. Perusal of the policy form shows that the declaration has not been signed by the complainant/respondent. At one place meant for the signatures, a writing ‘NA’ appears. Ld. Counsel for the OP/appellant fairly concedes that the application form has also not been filled up by the complainant. In the circumstances, it supports the case of the complainant that he was misled by the misrepresentation made by the agent Ms. Pooja. I am,therefore, of the considered opinion that the Ld. District Forum rightly directed for refund of the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Complaint was filed in the year 2010. In the circumstances, OP/appellant is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-alongwith interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of its realization. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
8.         Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as rules and thereafter file be consigned to Records.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)