Order No. 19 dt. 02/05/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant was working as an officer of RPF under Baruipur P.S. and one agent of o.p. bank came to the complainant and insisted him to take a policy and accordingly, the complainant made a policy in the o.p. bank being policy no.14084750 dt.16.12.10. The complainant after receiving the policy document was not satisfied and he was told that the policy would be in terms of Unit Link Plan, but when the complainant received the documents of the policy he found that it was Personal Pension Plan. The complainant after going through the policy became frustrated and he never wanted to have any pension benefit since he is a govt. employee he will be entitled to get pension. Therefore he never opted for any pension scheme. After receiving the policy within 15 days the complainant went to o.p. bank and surrendered the policy with o.p. on 9.9.11. On the basis of the said fact the complainant prayed for refund of the amount of Rs.50,000/- along with compensation of Rs.3 lakhs and litigation cost of Rs.1 lakh.
The o.p. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant approached the o.p. through its agent and expressed his willingness to avail a policy. The agent of o.p. duly furnished details and the several policies. After understanding and being satisfied with the same the complainant duly applied for a policy by filling up the application form. Subsequently the complainant vide his letter dt.13.12.10 made a request for transferring the said fund into the pension plan. Upon receipt of such letter and duly filled up application form o.p. issued a HDFC Personal Pension Plan bearing policy no.14084750 dt.16.12.10. The said policy was for a term of 10 years with an annual premium of Rs.50,000/- for 10 years and the assured sum was Rs.5,82,866/-. The said document of the policy was duly dispatched to the complainant’s address through Blue Dart Courier on 21.12.10, but the said consignment was returned with remark ‘address incomplete’. On 7.2.11 the o.p. again dispatched the policy by Overnite Courier and also sent the same on the mailing address of the complainant. The complainant during the free look period did not exercise his option regarding the dissatisfaction of the policy. The complainant since failed to pay the further policy premium, the policy has reached to ‘lapse status’ due to non payment of subsequent premium. In view of the said fact o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant purchased one policy from o.p.
- Whether the complainant himself opted for the benefit of pension scheme.
- Whether the complainant failed to exercise his option during the free look period.
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.p.
- 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 was misinformed by the agent of o.p. that the policy would be one time payment of premium and for that reason the complainant applied for the policy but subsequently after getting the policy the complainant came to learn that the policy meant for providing pension scheme and the complainant will have to pay an amount of Rs.50,0000/- in each year and to be continued for 10 years. The complainant already having the benefit of pension from the govt. therefore the complainant never approached the o.p. for opting for pension scheme. The complainant also after receiving the policy exercised his option within the free look period for cancellation of the policy but o.p. did not abide by the direction of the complainant for which the complainant had to filed this case praying for refund of Rs.50,000/- along with other reliefs.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. argued that the complainant himself filled in the form and he opted for the scheme of the policy. By a letter dt.13.12.10 the complainant requested the o.p. for fund transfer to his proposal no.13994057. After receiving the said letter the policy was converted to for providing the pension scheme to the complainant. Apart from the said fact the complainant never exercised his option within free look period for cancellation of the policy, therefore the complainant cannot ask for refund of the money. It was further stated that o.p. sent the policy to the complainant at his mailing address but he was not found, as a result of which the complainant claimed for cancellation of the policy by exercising cancellation of the policy within free look period was a myth. In view of the said fact o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant is an officer of RPF and being a police officer he was fully aware regarding the pros and cons of the policy and he put his signature on the proposal form as well as he provided all the relevant data required for applying of the policy. Therefore it cannot be said that due to the influence of the agent he filled in the form and he was not aware regarding the fate of the said policy. The complainant being an officer of RPF in order to save his income tax paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- and by making false allegation against the insurance company now he has come up with the manufactured story that within free look period he exercised his option for cancellation of the policy. The complainant enjoyed the benefit of income tax and now he has claimed the said refund of the amount, for which this case was filed for enjoyment of double benefit by making wild allegation that he was not aware regarding the terms and conditions of the policy and/or he exercised his option for cancellation of the policy within free look period. Even he failed to receive the policy as per the mailing address provided by him with the deliberate intention of creating evidence for strengthening his claim for making allegation against the o.p. that he exercised his option within 15 days of the free look period for cancellation of the policy. The complainant has defaulted in payment of the premium subsequently and the policy has reached to ‘lapse status’ due to non payment of subsequent premium. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, we hold that the complainant deliberately opened the policy and also made false claim against the o.p. by not paying the subsequent premium and in order to recover the amount paid by him of Rs.50,000/- filed this case without having any cogent ground against the o.p. 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.635/2013 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
