BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER +DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.43 of 2015

Date of Institution: 15.1.2015

  Date of Decision: 27.6.2016

Vijay Mohan S/o Kewal Krishan Gupta R/o H.No. 1876/12, Kashmir Avenue, Gopal Nagar, Majitha Road, Amritsar

Complainant

Versus

1. ING Life Insurance Co., ING Vyasa House, 5^th Floor, No.22,MG Road, Bangalore 560001 through its Local office at Amritsar/Manager
2. Exide Life Insurance Co.Ltd., SCO 44, 2^nd Floor, Nagpal Tower, Circular Road, Amritsar through its Manager
3. Exide Life Insurance Co.Ltd.,Ist Floor, Gold Hill Square No. 690, Hosur Road, Begur Hobli, Bangalore 560068 through its Principal Officer

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 & 12  of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:    For the Complainant                  : Sh.Ajay Shanker,Advocate  

For the Opposite Parties   : Sh. Amit Bhatia,Advocate

Coram

Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1.       Vijay Mohan complainant has brought the instant complaint under section  11 & 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that   complainant purchased one Life Insurance Policy bearing No.02368246 with date of commencement 12.1.2012, in his name, from opposite party No.1 through its authorized agent/representative, for the single time premium of Rs. 50,000/- for a period of 16 years to be matured on 12.1.2027.It was specifically told by the Rep./agent of opposite party No.1 to the complainant that he was obtaining such policy with the single time premium and he shall not be liable to pay any further premium. The complainant had signed the requisite forms at the instance of the agent/Rep.  Accordingly, mobile message was sent to  the complainant through SMS regarding commencement of his policy w.e.f. 12.1.2012 and he was promised to send the policy documents within a short period. But the same were not received by the complainant for such a long period. In this respect, complainant  approached the local office of the opposite party from time to time and enquired  about the policy documents  but they used to assure  the complainant that the same would reach him directly at his home address. After waiting for a long period,  the complainant even made calls at Toll free customer care No. 18004258228 and  Mobile No. 9880888228 at the head office of opposite party No.1 but he only received the assurances for the policy documents. Ultimately on 10.3.2014 complainant received the policy documents from the opposite party but he was astonished to know that the policy was for a period of 16 years with the yearly premium of Rs. 50000/-, whereas , he was not in a position to pay premium of Rs. 50000/- every year. The complainant clearly told  the agent/Rep that he was taking the policy only with the single premium of Rs. 50000/-. As such , the complainant immediately wrote a letter dated 11.3.2014 to opposite party No.1 for cancellation of policy No. 02368246 under free look period being not satisfied with the policy conditions and its terms and they were requested to cancel the same and to refund his premium amount . Original policy documents were sent by the complainant but in reply thereto, opposite party sent back copy of  the said letter to the complainant  with their stamp  of dated 18.3.2014 of “Refund department”  showing the receipt of his letter but they did not refund the amount to the complainant. The complainant had been making calls to the opposite parties from time to time but to no effect. Then again the complainant sent letter dated 11.6.2014 to opposite party No.1 through registered post alongwith previous letter  with the same request but to no effect. Thereafter the complainant received letter dated 9.6.2014 from Customer Services of opposite party No.3 giving the reference  of his letter dated 15.3.2014 but they refused to process the request of the complainant. The complainant has sought for following reliefs vide instant complaint:-

i)       Opposite parties may be directed to cancel the policy and to refund the amount of Rs. 50000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.

ii)      Opposite parties be also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 40000/- for causing mental pain, agony, harassment and inconvenience to the complainant.

iii)     Cost of litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 3000/- be also awarded to the complainant.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice opposite parties appeared and filed collective written statement contesting the claim of the complainant taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that  at the outset  present complaint is not maintainable either on legal grounds or on factual basis. The complainant is guilty of suppressing the material and pertinent facts relevant for the adjudication of the present complaint apart from filing a vexatious and frivolous complaint . The present complaint deserved to be dismissed on this ground alone ; it is further stated that present complaint is false, incorrect and has been filed with malafide intention. It is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is an attempt to waste the precious time of this Forum as the same has been filed by the complainant just to avail undue advantage. The complaint is thus liable to be dismissed under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ; that complainant, Vijay Mohan being an educated person, had availed a life insurance policy for himself from opposite party and in this regard submitted the proposal form dated 10.1.2012 proposing for “Reassuring Life Endowment with Reversionary Bonus Plan” a traditional life insurance product offered by the opposite party which is approved by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority of India. The features  of the above mentioned plan were explained in detail to the complainant and only after understanding the same in its entirety , the complainant voluntarily opted for the said plan. The premium opted by him was Rs. 49,500/-  to be paid annually for premium paying terms of 16 years  and sum assured under the policy was Rs. 7,74,650/- for tenure of 16 years. The complainant had confirmed these facts in the declaration made in the proposal form dated 10.1.2012. A copy of the proposal form  which was submitted by the complainant is produced herewith. It is further submitted that based on the answers, statements and declarations made in the proposal form  duly executed and submitted by the complainant and after receipt of premium, the opposite party/company had issued a policy bearing No. 02368246 to the complainant on 13.1.2012. the details of the policy are given below for ready reference of this Forum :-

3.       The policy schedule alongwith a welcome letter, the terms and conditions applicable to the policy were sent to complainant at his address provided in the proposal form on 13.1.2012 through Speed Post vide AWB No. EK482986566IN. Copy of the policy schedule and terms and conditions attached. (It is to be noted that, because of the name change in the company all our communication including the terms and conditions which are re-printed   for the purpose of producing before this Forum from fully loaded computer system capture Exide Life in place of ING Vysya. However, if this Forum needs to see the original policy bond same is available with the complainant. It is submitted that , as per Regulation 6(2) of protection  of policy holder’s interest regulation 2002 issued by IRDAI, the policy holder is at liberty to review the terms and conditions of the policy and has the option to cancel the policy by stating the reason for his/her objection within 15 days of the receipt of policy bond (free look period). In such cases the company shall cancel the policy and return the balance amount (after deducting the proportionate risk premium for the period of risk cover and expenses incurred by the company on account of medical examination on stamp duty charges) to the policy holder.  The said facts were clearly intimated in the welcome letter issued to the complainant alongwith the policy schedule and terms and conditions. It is further submitted that complainant never raised any objection to the terms and conditions thereof within 15 days of the receipt of policy documents. Hence, contract of Life Insurance which company/opposite party had with complainant become legally concluded and it was presumed that complainant was satisfied with the terms and conditions so issued to him. Therefore, the complainant  is stopped from disputing the terms and conditions of legally concluded contract. It is  further submitted that, thereafter, complainant had not paid any renewal premiums for the year 2013 and 2014 for whatsoever reason best known  to him. Even after sending repeated reminder notices/SMS’s by the opposite party neither the complainant  approached with any complaint of non receipt of the policy bond. Hence, it is presumed that policy which was sent in Jan.2012 was duly delivered to the complainant. However, complainant approached the opposite party for issuance of duplicate policy in March,2014. Accordingly, opposite party had sent policy bond on 6.3.2014 through first flight courier vide AWB No. F99100647952 and same got  delivered to him on 10.3.2014.  Subsequently, complainant approached for free look cancellation (in short FLC) for his policy No. 02368246 which was duly rejected by the opposite party stating  that earlier policy was sent on January 2012. Therefore, at this juncture same cannot be cancelled as opposite party had duly covered the life risk of the complainant for  substantial period  and further it was also given due commission to the agent who has solicited this policy. Hence, same was rejected vide letter dated 9.6.2014. Copy of the letter is produced herewith. It is further submitted that entire allegations made in the complaint are false and baseless and are made just for the purpose of filing this suit before this Forum. Further, nothing prevented the complainant to approach the opposite party within reasonable time of the issuance of the policy bond and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

4.       In his bid to prove the case, Sh. Ajay Shanker,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-16 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

5.       To rebut the aforesaid evidence, Sh.Amit Bhatia,Adv.counsel for the opposite parties tendered copy of proposal form Ex.OP1, copy of policy terms and conditions Ex.OP2, copy of letter dated 9.6.2014 Ex.OP3, affidavit of Sh.Chethan P.General Manager Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite parties.

6.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file as well as written synopsis of arguments submitted by the opposite parties.

7.       It has vehemently been contended on behalf of the complainant that it is not disputed that the complainant obtained/purchased one Life Insurance policy bearing No.02368246 with date of commencement on 12.1.2012 in his name from the opposite party No.1 through its authorized agent/representative for single time premium of Rs. 50000/- for  a period of 16 years, which was to mature on 12.1.2027. Copy of the Insurance policy accounts for Ex.C-14. It is the further case of the complainant that policy documents did not reach him  over long period of time. The complainant met local office several times for enquiring about the policy documents. But they went on putting of the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant also made calls at Toll free number 18004258228 and at Mobile No. 9880888228 at the head office of opposite party No.1. But, however,  only the assurances were being given to him that his policy documents will soon reach him. Ultimately on 10.3.2014 complainant received his policy documents from the opposite party but he was astonished to know that his policy was for a period of 16 years with yearly premium of Rs. 50000/-, whereas he was not in a position to pay premium of Rs. 50000/- p.a.. The complainant had clearly told the agent/representative of opposite party No.1 that he was taking the policy only with single premium of Rs. 50000/-. As such complainant immediately wrote letter dated 11.3.2014 , copy whereof is Ex.C-2 on record to opposite party No.1 for cancellation of the policy No. 02368246 under free look period and requested the opposite party to cancel the same and refund the premium amount. Original policy documents were also sent by the complainant to opposite party No.1. But, however, opposite party did not refund the premium amount to him so far. The complainant also sent a  letter dated 11.6.2014 vide registered post alongwith his previous letter with the same request , but to no effect. Thereafter, the complainant received letter dated 9.6.2014 from customer service of opposite party No.3 giving reference of his letter dated 18.3.2014 , but they refused to process the request of the complainant. As such , it is contended that opposite parties are deficient in service and they have failed to refund the premium amount of Rs. 50000/- to the complainant without any reasonable cause and it is contended that the complaint may be allowed and opposite parties may be directed to refund the premium amount of Rs. 50000/- alongwith  interest , compensation as well as litigation expenses to be assessed by this Forum.

8.       But,however, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case. The fact remains that original policy has been duly sent to the complainant by opposite party No.1 on 13.1.2012, which was received by him . This fact can also be fortified from the policy which has been placed on record by the complainant during the course of arguments. If the complainant had already sent the original policy for cancellation to the opposite party in March, 2014, there was no question of producing the original policy in this Forum at the behest of the complainant. It appears that the complainant has concocted a false story that he did not receive the original Insurance policy in January, 2012,  just to gain undue advantage from the opposite party. The complainant has also placed on record the proposal form, copy whereof is Ex.C-16 which is duly signed by the complainant and as per para 44, it is mentioned that the premium instalment was Rs.49,500/- while premium payment term (years) have mentioned as 16. Since the proposal form has been admittedly signed by the complainant, therefore, the plea of the complainant that he was not aware about the terms and conditions of the policy i.e. the premium payment tenure, is not sustainable.

9.       Not only that , it is proved on record that complainant made payment of single premium and thereafter he has not made any payment towards premium and the story has been concocted by the complainant only to wriggle out from the legal consequences and he wanted to get refund of the premium only which he had already paid. Instant complaint is palpably hit by limitation. The complaint has been filed on 16.1.2015, whereas policy was purchased on 12.1.2012 , which means and imply that present complaint has been filed after the lapse of more than 3 years. If the complainant had not received the policy, he must have written letter to the opposite party after waiting for about one month that policy documents  may be sent to him. But in the case in hand the complainant is stated to have written the letter only on 11.6.2014. In such a situation, the cause of action arose to the complainant from the date of the issuance of the policy and as per provisions of section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant could approach the Forum for getting the requisite relief under section 12 of the Act within a period of two years therefrom. Reliance in this connection can be had on Avtar Singh  Dhillon-Appellant Versus HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd.& Ors-Respondents 2012(3) CPJ 133, UT, Chandigarh, wherein it has been laid down that we are of the considered opinion that the complaint was palpably barred by time. The complainant purchased the policy on 12.11.2008 and he complained to the opposite parties regarding the non receipt of the same for the first time on 2.12.2011 i.e. after the lapse of more than two years. In case the complainant had not received the policy, he was required to write a letter to the opposite parties after waiting for about a month that the policy documents be sent to him. The cause of action arose to the complainant on the date of purchase of the policy. According to section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, he could file a complaint under section 12 for redressal of grievance, within two years, from the date of accrual of cause of action. The complaint having been filed on 10.2.2012, was palpably barred by time. The District Forum was also right in holding so. The ratio laid down by judgement (supra) is applicable to the facts of the present case on all its fours. Moreover, a perusal  to the proposal form also shows that complainant was fully made aware to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and he signed the same after admitting the terms and conditions to be legal and valid and now he cannot be allowed to wriggle out from the legally enforceable contract of insurance entered between him and  the opposite parties. As such, instant complaint has got no force and the same deserves to the dismissed on the ground of limitation as well.

10.     Consequently , instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. . Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 27.6.2016

/R/                                                                        ( S.S.Panesar )

President

                             ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)           (Anoop Sharma)

                                                Member                          Member