Order No. 15 dt. 03/02/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant was called by one Biswajit Pal a representative of o.p. company asked the complainant to open a policy and the complainant gave a consent towards acquiring a Sampoorn Samridhi Policy and accordingly the complainant paid a sum of Rs.25,000/-. After a few months the complainant received a policy known as Classic Assure Policy, frequency of premium yearly, term 10 years. The complainant did not apply for the said policy. The policy was sent to a wrong address thereby it did not reach the complainant immediately after the issuance of the policy in favour of the complainant. After getting the policy the complainant contacted the o.ps. and she was informed that o.ps. did not get any communication from the complainant, as such o.ps. refused to change the plan of the policy or to refund the money to the complainant by sending a letter to her. The complainant made a complaint to the grievance cell but no relief was given to her. Ultimately the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to issue a Sampoorn Samridhi Policy and by recording the correct address of the complainant as per document provided by her and also prayed for compensation of Rs.2 lakhs and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.
The o.p. no.1 contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that on or about July 2013 the complainant approached the o.p. company through a broker and expressed her willingness to avail a life insurance policy. After understanding and being satisfied with the same the complainant duly applied for a HDFC SL Classic Assurance Plan by filling up the application form. Upon receipt of the written application and considering the information given by the complainant to be true and correct o.ps. made welcome call to check whether the customer is agreeable regarding the policy which she agreed, then only o.ps. issued policy bearing no.16194774 in favour of the complainant. The said policy was for a term of 10 years with an annual premium of Rs.25,000/- payable for 7 years. The said policy was duly dispatched to the complainant but the same got returned, thereafter o.ps. through its employee handed over the policy bond to the complainant on 21.11.13. As per Regulation 6(2) of Protection of Policy Holders’ Interest Regulation, 2002 contains an option to return the policy within 30 days or receiving the same, if the policy holder is not satisfied which is called free look period of the policy. The complainant was also provide with the similar option with policy documents.
The o.ps. did not receive any request for cancellation. The complainant wrote a letter on 18.4.14 alleging missale and non receipt of the policy document. The o.ps. duly replied the said letter. Subsequently the complainant again wrote a letter since the complainant filed false and frivolous case. The o.p. no.1 prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant had the policy in her name.
- Whether she applied for Sampoorn Samridhi Policy or for HDFC SL Classic Assurance Plan.
- Whether the complainant was given the option to cancel the policy.
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant through the agent of o.p. no.1 applied for Sampoorn Samridhi Policy in the month of July 2013 but after receiving the policy the complainant became astonished and found that o.p. sent a Classic Assurance Policy, frequency of premium yearly, term 10 years. The complainant was not informed regarding the issuance of the said policy while the complainant received the said policy the free look period was over since o.ps. deliberately sent the policy to a wrong address of the complainant resulting in non receipt of the policy for which the complainant failed to exercise her option to accept the said policy. Whenever the complainant came to learn that she did not opt for the said policy she made correspondence but o.ps. did not give any importance which compelled the complainant to file this case for redressal of her grievance. In view of the said fact ld. lawyer for the complainant prayed for cancellation of the said policy and direction upon the o.ps. for issuance of Sampoorn Samridhi Policy and also for other reliefs.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. no.1 argued that on being approached by the complainant to have a policy through an agent she filled in the form and she also provided the information regarding her address, age, qualification, all sorts of information provided by her. The complainant after understanding and being satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy applied for the said HDFC Classic Assurance Plan. In order to prove the said fact o.p. no.1 has annexed the application form duly filled in by the complainant. The said policy was for a term of 10 years with an annual premium of Rs.25,000/- payable for 7 years. The original policy document was duly dispatched to the complainant through Blue Dart Courier but the same got returned. Thereafter o.p. no.1 through an employee directly handed over the policy to the complainant on 21.11.13. Even after receiving the said policy the complainant did not raise any objection within the free look period of 30 days. After the lapse of several months on 18.4.14 she wrote a letter raising her objection regarding the said policy. The o.p. no.1 stated that the complainant provided all sorts of documents necessary for issuing policy in favour of the complainant and she also provided xerox copy of PAN Card and other vital documents which goes to show that the complainant deliberately by suppressing the material fact made false allegation against the o.ps. and filed this case praying for relief. Since the case is based on manufactured facts therefore the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant is a school teacher and she filled in the form for obtaining the policy from o.p. no.1. The complainant raised objection that she applied for Sampoorn Samridhi Policy and she was provided with HDFC SL Classis Assurance Plan. The said policy was sent to the address provided by the complainant. But unfortunately the addressee was not found and the courier had to return the policy to o.p. no.1. It is an admitted fact that the complainant received the policy though an employee of o.p. no.1 on 21.11.13. Even after receiving the policy she did not raise her objection, subsequently after the lapse of several months she sent a letter stating inter alia that she never applied for the said policy, on the contrary she applied for Sampoorn Samridhi Policy. If that would have been the fact, what had prevented the complainant to raise her objection immediately after the receiving of the policy from o.p. no.1. Why she did not raise her objection within one month from the date of receipt of the policy through the employee of o.p. no.1 and she had the option to cancel the policy after receiving the policy on that date. It is curious enough that the complainant being an educated lady provided all information including her income, PAN card number and other relevant datad at the time of filling up the form for the said policy and it is hardly believable that she failed to go through the heading of the form of the policy that it was not for the Sampoorn Samridhi Policy but it was for HDFC SL Classic Assurance Plan. The inconsistency both in the pleadingsand the evidence hardly inspire any confidence on the allegation of the complainant that she was misled by the representative but the complainant with an ulterior motive to squeeze money from o.ps. filed this case, therefore we hold that the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.457/2014 is dismissed on contest against the o.p. no.1 and dismissed ex parte against other o.ps. without cost.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
