Haryana

Karnal

126/2014

Prem Singh S/o Hari Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

D.P. Raman

21 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No. 126 of 2014

                                                             Date of instt.  05.05.2014

                                                               Date of decision:21.09.2016

 

Prem Sigh son of Hari Chand resident of House no.303, Gali no.2, Jyoti Nagar, Karnal (Haryana)

 

 

                                                                         ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. ICICI Prulife Towers, 1089, Appasahab Marathe Marg, Prabha Devi, Mumbai 400025 through its Executive Director.

2. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd. one Indiabulls Centre, Tower-1, 16^th floor, Jupiter Mill Compound 841, Sonapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road Mumbai 400013 through its Chief Operating Officer.

3. Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. H Block, 1^st floor, Dhrubai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai, Maharastra 400710 through its Chief Operating Officer.

 

                                                                             …………Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri D.P.Raman Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri  Vikas Bakshi Advocate for opposite party no.2.

                    Opposite parties no.1 and 3 were given up.

         

                                     

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 on the averments that he obtained policy no.16202303 from opposite party no.1 on 14.12.2011 for a term of 10 years and deposited Rs.30,000/- on 13.12.2011. Second installment of Rs.30,000/- was deposited, vide receipt no.77736626. When third installment was due in the month of November, 2013 he came into contact with Mr. Rohila, the agent of opposite party no.1, and enquired from his regarding provision for cancellation of the policy. Mr. Rohilla advised him to talk to Mr. Ved Parkash Arora having mobile no.09717025894 and was working with the opposite party no.1. Mr. Ved Parkash told him that the policy could be cancelled, but he will have to get the policy from opposite party no.2. Then he opted to get the policy from opposite party no.2 under life insurance plan through Priyash having mobile no.9813611797, who assured him that the amounting of Rs.14,400/- of policy of opposite party no.1 would be refunded to him. He deposited an amount of Rs.36,234/- on 8.11.2013, vide receipt no.48817327. The amount was borrowed by him by from some other person with the hope that the same would be repaid within 10 days after getting refund of Rs.1,44,000/- from the opposite party no.1. When the amount of Rs.1,44,000/- was not received by him till 20.11.2013, he contacted Ved Parkash, Rohilla and Priyansh and they assured that he would get the amount before 24.11.2013, but he did not receive the amount till that date. Then he approached Mr. Ved Parkash, who told him that if he would get another policy from opposite party no.3 entire amount would be refunded. Mr. Ved Parkash sent him to Mr. Virender Singh, the agent of opposite party no.3, who also assured that all the three companies were sister companies. On his assurance he deposited Rs.28,750/- on 29.11.2013, vide receipt no.WC0021015200 under the plan of UIN of opposite party no.3. He was assured that after termination of the policy of opposite party no.1, he would get an amount of Rs.1,44,000/- including all benefits. Then in the month of December 2013, he made application to opposite parties no.2 and 3 and again on 01.02.2014 for the cancellation of the policy issued by them. Again on 13.1.2014 he made complaint to opposite party no.3 and contacted Ved Parkash, Rohilla, Virender and Priyash, who always assured regarding cancellation of the policy and refund of the amount of premiums after deduction of 1%. Those persons cheated him. On the advice of Mr. Ved Parkash he made complaint to insurance Ombudsman on 1.2.2014, but no action was taken. In this way opposite parties were deficient in their services due to which he suffered mental pain, agony and harassment as well as financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties. Opposite parties no.1 and 3 filed separate written statement disputing the claim of the complainant, but lateron on account of compromise with them they were given up by the complainant. Therefore, there is no need to give details of the written statements filed by them.

3.                Opposite party no.2 filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint; that the complaint is an afterthought and has been filed with ulterior motive to harass and humiliate the opposite party no.2; that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.2; that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum; that complicated questions of law and facts are involved, which cannot be decided by this Forum under summary jurisdiction.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that before acceptance of the proposal by opposite party no.2 the contents of the proposal/application, illustrations and the addendum forms were read and explained to the complainant in Hindi language and after understanding all the terms and conditions of the policy the proposal form was signed by him. On the basis of the information furnished by the complainant in the proposal form, his request form was accepted by opposite party no.2 and thereafter the policy was issued. The complainant had paid premium of Rs.36,234/- for ‘BSLI Vision Life Income’ insurance policy, the term of which was 15 years. The policy documents were delivered to the complainant, which provided him a period of 15 days called “Freelook period” within which he could return the policy to opposite party no.2 stating the reason thereof. The freelook in period commenced from the date of receiving the policy. However, the application for cancellation of the policy was moved by the complainant on 13.01.2014 almost after a gap of one year and not in the month of December,2013. Hence, the said cancellation request was rightly rejected by opposite party no.2, vide letter dated 27.1.2014. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.2 The other allegations made in the complaint have also been denied.

4.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C19 have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party no.2 affidavit of Aakriti Manocha Legal Manager Ex.OP2A/1 and the documents Ex.OP2-1 to Ex.OP2 -4 have been tendered.

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                The complainant has levelled the allegations of fraud and mis-representation against the agents of the opposite parties, but this forum needs not to go into the allegations of fraud and mis-representation, because under summary procedure such allegations cannot be decided which require elaborate evidence and Judicial Courts are only competent to decide the allegations of fraud and mis-representation.

8.                There is no dispute about the fact that the complainant had obtained the policy from opposite party no.2 and deposited the premium. It has been alleged that he moved application to the opposite party no.2 for cancellation of the policy in December, 2013 but except his affidavit there is no other evidence in this regard. The self serving affidavit of the complainant cannot be taken to be the gospel truth and on the basis of the same it cannot be concluded that he moved application for cancellation of the policy in Decmber,2013.  It is also important to point out that no date of December, 2013 has been given by the complainant in his pleadings or the affidavit. Thus, allegation regarding moving the application for cancellation of the policy in December, 2013, is quite vague and as such cannot be accepted.

9.                The copy of the proposal form Ex.OP2-1 shows that the same was signed by the complainant on 9.10.2013 and the declaration there under was signed on 11.10.2013. The copy of the premium paid certificate Ex.OP2-2 indicates that the premium amount of Rs.36,174.87 was deposited by the complainant on 8.11.2013. The copy of the letter of the complainant Ex.OP2-3 goes to show that he moved the said letter to opposite party on 13.1.2014, wherein he requested for cancellation of the policy. It was also alleged in the letter that the said policy was obtained by him on account of mis-representation by some person, who assured him that after 8 years he would get double the amount, but he found that the policy was of for the term of 15 years. Thus, it is emphatically clear that the complainant for the first time moved application/letter to the opposite party on 13.1.2014 for cancellation of the policy.

10.              The complainant has not disclosed as to on which date the policy was received by him. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, he could get the policy cancelled or amended within 15 days of receiving the policy i.e. within Freelook period. The premium was deposited by the complainant on 8.11.2013. The policy must have been issued on that day or some days thereafter. The delivery of the policy could also take some period. It is not the case of the complainant that he did not receive the policy document. He alleged that he moved application for cancellation of the policy in December, 2013. No date for moving such application has been given. It has not been mentioned that the application was moved at the end of December, 2013. Under such circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove that he moved application for cancellation of the policy within Freelook period i.e. within 15 days of receiving the policy document. Therefore, the opposite party no.2 was justified to decline the request for cancellation of the policy and not to refund the premium amount deposited by the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy. Consequently, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.2.

11.              As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 21.09.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member