Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.6.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant invested a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 4.9.2007 on the inducement of one Ms.Tanisha Verma, an employee of the Insurance Company. He received the policy document dated 7.9.2007, wherein a detail of Rs.10,000/- was given. It was stated that the complainant had never opted for Insurance Policy. On enquiry, it was informed by the OPs that during the investment period, free risks cover policy was issued. It was further stated that the premium receipt dated 7.9.2007 showed the amount having been received as Rs.25,000/- by the OPs, whereas, the unit statement dated 7.9.2007 revealed that the premium invested was to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, but no detail of balance amount of Rs.15,000/- was given. It was further stated that the statement of account dated 8.9.2008 showed the premium investment amount to be Rs.10,000/- and the fund value was shown at Rs.8117.22. It was further stated that Rs.1388.22 had been deducted towards charges, including taxes etc. When despite repeated requests, no satisfactory reply was received, regarding balance amount of Rs.15,000/-, a legal notice dated 13.10.2009 was served upon the OPs, to refund the amount of Rs.25,000/- alongwith interest, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by him. 3. In their joint reply, the OPs, admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was stated that the Policy had been issued to the complainant after receiving proposal form dated 4.9.2007 for purchase of HDFC Unit Linked Young Star Suvidha Plan. The said proposal form was accepted based on the information supplied by the complainant. It was further stated that prior to issuance of the Policy, adequate information regarding product, nature and its significance, was duly given to the complainant, in addition to the sale literature, and necessary guidance. It was further stated that, in case, the complainant was not satisfied with the Policy, he could return the same within 15 days, by stating the reasons therefor, to the OPs. It was further stated that the complaint was filed by the complainant when the Policy had already lapsed and he (complainant) had already taken all the benefits of the same for a period of one year i.e. the period for which he had paid the premium. It was denied that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service, or indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations were denied, being wrong. 4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 5. After hearing the Complainant in person, Counsel for the OPs, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed, by the appellant/complainant. 7. We have heard the appellant/complainant in person, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 8. The Complainant, who himself is a practicing advocate, submitted that he had never opted for the insurance policy. He further submitted that he paid the premium of Rs.25,000/-, but in return, he was only given benefit of Rs.10,000/-. He further submitted that the terms and conditions of the Policy were not mentioned, in the proposal form. He further submitted that even, at the time of filling up the proposal form, he was not made to understand, about the terms and conditions of the alleged Policy. He further submitted that he was not told, nor any communication was sent to him, to the effect, that, in case, he was not satisfied with the Policy, he could exercise his option within15 days, from the date of receipt of the same for cancellation thereof. He further submitted that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service, and also indulged into unfair trade practice by giving wrong information to him. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the appellant, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. D2 is the proposal form which was filled up by the complainant. On the top of it, in bold letters, it was written “Unit linked Suvidha proposal Form’. Alongwith this document, another document is attached, which shows that the annual premium amount was Rs.25,000/- and the sum assured was Rs.1,25,000/-. After acceptance of the proposal, the policy document was issued to the complainant, which was for a term of 10 years. The complainant, at the time of filling up the proposal form, which was accepted by the OPs, knew with regard to the nature of the Policy, he was purchasing from them. D3 is the letter which was written to the complainant, by the OPs, alongwith which some documents were attached. One of those documents, is at page 37 of the District Forum file which depicts schedule of benefits. It is evident from this document that for the first year, the allocation rate would be 40% of the premium paid. The complainant very well knew about the allocation rate, mentioned in the document depicted as “schedule of benefits” at page 37 of the District Forum file. The first premium was paid by the complainant at the time of inception of the Policy to the tune of Rs.25,000/-, and 40% allocation rate thereof, came to be Rs.10,000/-. It was, accordingly, that the units were allocated to the complainant as shown in the unit statement. Ex.D3 is the letter which was sent to the complainant informing that his proposal had been accepted and the insurance policy had been issued. It was also intimated vide this letter that, in case, the complainant was not agreeable to any provision of the Policy, stated in the terms and conditions of the same, he had an option for returning the Policy to the OPs stating the reasons therefor, within 15 days, from the date of receipt of the same, and in that event, arrangement shall be made to refund the premium paid by the complainant. There is nothing, on record, that this document was not received by the complainant, from the OPs. Since the complainant was satisfied with the Policy, obtained, on the basis of acceptance of the proposal form, referred to above, he did not exercise the option to return. No reliable evidence was produced by the complainant, that he was given assurance by any employee of the Company, contrary to the terms and conditions of the Policy. The District Forum was right, in holding that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OPs, or indulgence into unfair trade practice. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct are affirmed. 10. No other point was urged by the appellant. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. 12. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 13. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | |
