Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/1370

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Harpal Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Varun Chawla

05 Mar 2015

ORDER

First Additional Bench

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

First Appeal No.1370 of 2011 

                                                          Date of institution: 09.09.2011  

                                                    Date of Decision : 05.03.2015

Manager/Incharge Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO No.73, Phase IX, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

(through Sh.Rajinder Singh Kalsi, Zonal Legal Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 215-217, Sector 34, Chandigarh.

                                                     ……..Appellant/ Opposite party.

                                      Versus

Harpal Singh s/o Late Sh.Sewa singh r/o Phase II, Mohali, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

                                     …..…Respondent/Complainant.

 

First Appeal against order dated 18.07.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mohali.

Before:-

                   Shri J.S.Klar, Presiding Judicial Member

                   Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.

Present:-

                   For the appellant   :     Sh.Varun Chawla, Advocate

                   For the respondent:     None

Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member

          This appeal has been preferred by the appellant (‘the opposite party’ in the complaint) against the respondent of this appeal (‘the complainant’ in the complaint) under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), impugning order dated 18.07.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mohali, (hereinafter called the ‘District Forum’) in  Consumer Complaint No.186 of 2011, accepting the complaint of the complainant and directing opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.46,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 25.10.2010 till the date of actual payment thereon, besides Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses.   The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the opposite party, now, appellant in this appeal.

2.                The brief facts of the case are that Sh.Harpal Singh, complainant filed the complaint under the Act against the opposite party on the averments that he took Bajaj Allianz Equity Growth Fund Policy No.0056355622 from the opposite party, which he wanted to switch over to lower risk policy for this purpose.  He visited the office of the opposite party, where he was sent to its agents by the Front Office Executive.  Instead of converting the lower risk policy, the agents of the opposite party insisted upon the complainant to take a new policy.  He was, therefore, made to surrender the policy and he was told to take another policy.  He was represented that he have to pay only till three years after that period and he could take benefits upto 15 years.  It was further pleaded by the complainant that the second policy was regular premium policy No.0188433996.  Agents of the opposite party represented the complainant that he and his son both were covered under both the policies, whereas actually only the complainant’s son was covered there under.  Both the policies have been issued in the name of Sh.Gurcharan Singh, son of the complainant, instead of in the name of the complainant.  While issuing the second policy, on 25.10.2010, he was to pay Rs.46,000/- to the OP through its agent.  After reading the documents of the second policy, the complainant met the agent of the opposite party for clarification and changing it to a single premium policy and also for changing his contact number, which was given wrongly in the policy or in the alternative form to go in for cancellation of the policy.  He was told that it was a pre-printed policy.  He approached the agent of the opposite party within the free look period, but the agent allowed the free look period to lapse by giving him wrong information.  It was alleged that he received notice on letter-head of the opposite party regarding wrong terms and conditions of the policy only after free look period was let to be over.  OP had refused to cancel/change the policy and failed to provide him satisfactory service.  He filed the complaint directing the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.46000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. or to change the policy to a single premium policy and to pay him damages for harassment to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.

3.                The complaint was contested by the opposite party by filing the written reply before the District Forum, raising preliminary objections; that complainant had not approached the District Forum with clean hands and has concocted the false story to mislead the District Forum.  It was further pleaded that the complainant was given option to cancel the policy within 15 days from the date of its receipt, if he was dissatisfied therewith.  The policy was dispatched to him on 15.11.2010 vide POD No.587529133 and it was received by him on 16.11.2010.  Fifteen days free look period expired on 30.11.2010.  The complainant requested for cancellation of the policy on 25.03.2011 and that too, after about 4 months of the receipt of the policy bond.  Therefore, his request being highly belated is legally and rightly rejected by the opposite party.  It was further pleaded by the OP that the complainant himself proposed for regular premium participating “Cash Gain Economy” plan on the life of his son Mr.Gurcharan Singh out of his own freewill without any coercion or force, vide proposal form dated 25.10.2010 and thereby opted to pay regular yearly premiums for a term of 15 years.   It was further submitted by the OP that the answers to the proposal form were given by the complainant and his son themselves and was signed after fully understanding the terms and conditions of the plan.  Earlier policy on his life was surrendered by the complainant himself on 14.10.2010 voluntarily.  It was denied by OP that its agent ever asked the complainant to surrender its policy and the amount of Rs.96,089/- in respect of proceeds of the first policy stood already credited to his bank account No.005801508264 with the ICICI Bank on 22.10.2010 through NEFT.  The other allegations of the complaint were denied by OP.  Dismissal of the complaint of the complainant was prayed by the opposite party.

4.                The complainant tendered in evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/1, copies of his application dated 13..12.2010 Ex.C-1, Notice Ex.C-2, receipt Ex.C-3, Receipt dated 14.11.2010 Ex.C-4, his complaint dated 25.03.2011 Ex.C-5, letter dated 29.3.2011 Ex.C-6, email dated 01.04.2011 Ex.C-7, letter dated 14.11.2010 Ex.C-8 and policy document Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence.  The opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of its Zonal Legal Manager Rajinder Singh Kalsi Ex.RW1/1, copies of proposal Forum Ex.R-1 and letter of the OP to the complainant dated 29.03.2011 Ex.R-3 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum, accepted the complaint of complainant with the direction to opposite party to refund the complainant the amount of Rs.46,000/- with interest thereon @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 25.10.2010 till the date of actual payment.  Since interest on the awarded amount was allowed, no separate compensation for harassment of complainant was awarded.  The OP was also directed to pay to the complainant the litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.3,000/-.  Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, the OP has preferred this appeal against the same.

5.                We have perused the record and heard the learned counsel for the appellant as none appeared for the respondent in this appeal at the time of arguments of the appeal.  It is an admitted fact in this case that earlier the complainant was having policy No.0056355622 from the opposite party, which he got terminated.  He wanted to switch over that policy to a lower risk policy, but he was advised by the agent of the opposite party to take a new policy, instead of adopting the mode of switching over to a lower risk in the previous policy.  He received Rs.96,089/- being the proceeds of the First Policy on 22.10.2010.  After the closer of the first policy, the proposal form for the present policy was filled on 25.10.2010 vide Ex.R-1 and the policy documents Ex.C-9 were received by the complainant on 16.11.2010, as admitted by the complainant himself in his application Ex.C-1.  On the other hand, the version of the opposite party is that the policy was dispatched on 15.11.2010 and it was received by the complainant on 16.11.2010.  Fifteen days free look period had expired on 30.11.2010 and the complainant requested for cancellation of the policy on 25.03.2011, when the free look period was already over, and his request was legally and rightly rejected, vide letter dated 29.03.2011 as   Ex.R-3.    As per the version of the complainant, after receiving the policy document on 16.11.2010, he immediately approached the agent of the opposite party for clarification and change of the policy into a single premium policy.  A letter was sent by Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited (OP) under email to the complainant regarding clarification of the policy No.0188433996, which was received by the complainant on 10.12.2010. We find that letter Ex.C-2 no where records the date of its dispatch.  We are unable to get any hang from this letter Ex.C-2, as to when it was received by complainant nor the name of the agent of the OP is mentioned on it.  The version of the OP is that complainant applied for cancellation of the policy on 25.03.2011 only, whereas the complainant relied upon Ex.C-1, the plain application, that he applied it on 13.10.2010.  There is nothing on the record to prove this fact as to when Ex.C-1 was sent and when it was received by the OP.  No postal receipt has been placed on record by the complainant to prove that he dispatched the cancellation request to the OP on 13.12.2010, nor there is any receipt number of OP on it.  We are unable to rely upon the plain Photostat copy of Ex.C-1 as it is not supported by any cogent evidence to prove it on the record that complainant opted for the cancellation of policy on 13th  December, 2010.  The version of the OP has been accepted, as correct that complainant applied for cancellation of policy to them on 25.03.2011 only, when the free look period of 15 days was already over.  After lapse of free look period, the request for cancellation of policy cannot be legally entertained by the OP as per the insurance contract Ex.C-8 on the record.  The order of the District Forum, Mohali on this point is not legally sustainable and merits reversal in this appeal.

6                 Sequel to above discussions, we accept the appeal filed by the appellant and by setting aside the order of District Forum, SAS Nagar Mohali vide 18.07.2011, the complaint of the complainant stands dismissed.

7.                The appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal.  The amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest, which accrued, thereon, shall be paid by registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft.

8.                The arguments in this appeal were heard on 24.02.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.

9.                The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                           (J.S.Klar)

                                                Presiding Judicial Member

 

March 5, 2015                         (Vinod Kumar Gupta)

LB/-                                                       Member