Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Complaint Case No.288/15
Date of institution : 7.5.2015
Date of decision : 2.11.2015
Ashish Jerath s/o Sh. Arun Kumar Jerath resident of 558, Green Field, Majitha Road, Near Mukti Narayan Mandir, Amritsar.
..............Complainant
Versus
ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Limited ( Now known as Exide Life Insurance ) having its head office at Gold Hill Square, Ist Floor, #690, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore – 560068 through its Chairman/principal Officer.
ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Limited ( now known as Exide Life Insurance ) having its local office at Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar.
...............Opposite parties
Complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act
Present : For the complainant : None
For the opposite party : Sh.Amit Bhatia, Adv.
QUORUM : Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President, Sh.Anoop Sharma, Member, Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Order Dictated by :
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Ashish Jerath under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that complainant is the sole proprietor of his concern A.J.Construction Company at 558, Green Field, Near Mukti Narayan Mandir, Amritsar and the complainant required
-2-
finance for smooth running of his said business to earn his livelihood. Complainant alleges that the representatives of the opposite party company namely Sh.Aditya Sharma and Ms.Pooja came in contact with the complainant and the complainant apprised them about financial assistance required by him for his business purpose. The said representative of the opposite party allured the complainant that they would arrange loan of Rs.10,00,000/- for his business purpose from the opposite party if the complainant would obtain insurance policy from the opposite party and further assured the complainant that if the insurance policy would not suit to him, he can get the same cancelled within free look period of one month and having been allured by the opposite party. The complainant under the allurement given by the said opposite party, he obtained policy No.02823841 with due date of commencement 26.12.2013 and annual premium payable thereunder at Rs.49993/- for 15 years and accordingly the complainant paid Rs.50000/- to the opposite party towards first instalment of premium and the original policy was received by the complainant on 4.1.2014 and thus the free look period of one month commenced from the date of receipt of original policy i.e.4.1.2014. Complainant alleges that the aforesaid representative of the opposite party assured the complainant that loan/limit of Rs.10 lacs would be provided to the complainant in the name
-3-
of his proprietorship concern within ten days of receipt of the policy and since the policy was received by the complainant on 4.1.2014, therefore, the opposite party was bound to sanction and release the limit of Rs.10 lacs upto 14.1.2014. The limit of Rs.10 lacs was not released to the complainant within the said stipulated period of 10 days. The opposite party has already received all the documents and after the receipt of the policy, the complainant requested the opposite party to release the limit of Rs.10 lacs and the opposite party asked the complainant to wait for another ten to
fifteen days. Complainant alleges that the complainant sent e-mail dated 18.1.2014 to the opposite party requesting them to immediately inform him about the fate of his limit and if the limit will not be sanctioned, then the policy should be treated as cancelled/surrendered. The complainant received message through e-mail on the same day intimating the complainant that they will give response to his e-mail request within 2 business days but inspite this message from the opposite party, the complainant did not receive any response from the company. On 27.1.2014, the complainant again received telephonic call from the opposite party that matter will be solved within two days. Complainant alleges that till date, problem of the complainant has not been solved. The complainant alleges that the opposite party and their representative sold the policy in question to the complainant
-4-
by misrepresenting the complainant that loan/limit of Rs.10 lacs would be provided to his proprietorship concern and in case of non providing of limit, the policy would be cancelled within free look period and the premium paid by him would be refunded.. The said act of the opposite parties in selling the policy in question by way of misrepresentation and not providing the loan/limit to the complainant and further not cancelling the policy and refunding the premium amount to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice as well as gross negligence which has caused mental pain, agony, harassment to the complainant. Hence, this complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund the policy premium amount to the complainant i.e.Rs.50000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% p.a.from the date of purchase of policy till repayment to the complainant. He also demanded compensation of Rs.40000/- alongwith litigation expenses.
2 On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant being educated person had duly submitted a proposal for life insurance with the opposite party on 26.12.2013 proposing for “ING Secured Income Insurance Plan”, an insurance product offered by the opposite party which is approved by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India. The features of
-5-
the above mentioned Plan were explained in detail to the complainant and only after understanding the same is its entirely, the complainant opted for the said plan. The premium chosen by the complainant was Rs.50000/- to be paid annually for a premium paying term of 15 years and sum assured under the policy was Rs. 5,68,000/- for tenure of 15 years. Complainant had duly nominated his father i.e.Mr.Arun Kumar Jerath as nominee under said policy. The complainant had confirmed these facts in his declaration made in the proposal form dated 26.12.2013. Opposite party believing to be true and correct had issued a policy bearing No.02823841 to the complainant on 2.1.2014 alongwith terms and conditions governing the policy and a welcome letter was duly acknowledged by the complainant. The complainant did not apply for the cancellation of the policy within free look period of 15 days. While denying and controverting other allegations, the opposite parties have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
3 Complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit ex.CW1/A alongwith documents ex.C-1 to C-9.
4 Opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Chetan P, General Manager ex.OP1,2/1, copy of policy schedule alongwith terms and conditions ex.OP1,2/2, copy of letter dated 21.1.2015 ex.OP1,2/3, reply to mail dt.9.9.2014 ex.OP1,2/4, reply to mail
-6-
dt.6.1.2015 ex.OP1,2/5, reply to mail dt.13.3.2015 ex.OP1,2/6, policy
brochure ex.OP1,2/7.
5 We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by counsel for the opposite party and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with their valuable
assistance.
6 From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant obtained insurance policy bearing No.02823841 with commencement dated 26.12.2013 and annual premium of Rs.49993/- payable for 15 years from the opposite party on payment of Rs.50000/-. The complainant received the original policy on 4.1.2014. Complainant alleges that representative of the opposite parties namely Mr.Aditya Sharma and Ms.Pooja assured the complainant that loan/limit of Rs. 10 lacs would be provided to the complainant in the name of his firm within 10 days from the receipt of policy but the opposite party could not arrange/release the loan/limit of Rs.10 lacs. So, complainant sent e-mail dated 18.1.2014 ex.C-2 to the opposite party requesting the opposite party to sanction loan/limit otherwise complainant can surrendered the policy and ask for refund of the amount without deduction of the amount but the complainant did not receive any
-7-
response from the opposite party. However, complainant received e-mail dated 27.1.2014 ex.C-8 as well as telephonic message from the opposite party that matter will be solved but the problem of the complainant could not be solved. Ultimately, in February 2015, complainant received e-mail dated 25.2.2015 ex.C-9 vide which opposite party intimated the complainant that policy of the complainant cannot be cancelled. Complainant in his complaint submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant
7 Whereas the case of the opposite parties is that opposite party never assured the complainant regarding arrangement of loan/limit of Rs.10 lacs as the complainant being educated person has filled in and signed the proposal form for life insurance with the opposite party on 26.12.2013 proposing for obtaining ING Secured Income Insurance Plan which was approved by IRDA of India and the complainant paid Rs.50000/- as premium and the opposite party issued the policy ex.OP1,2/2 to the complainant with annual premium of Rs.50000/- premium paying terms of 15 years and sum assured under the policy was Rs.5,68,000/-. The said policy bearing No. 02823841 was issued to the complainant on 2.1.2014 alongwith terms and conditions and welcome letter which was duly acknowledged by the complainant on 4.1.2014 as admitted by the
-8-
complainant in his complaint. Complainant never raised any objection in the policy terms and conditions. Complainant sent letter dated 18.1.2014 to the opposite party that representative Sh.Aditya Sharma and Ms.Pooja had promised the complainant that loan/limit of Rs.10 lacs would be provided in the name of the complainant within 10 days of the receipt of policy and thet also assured that in case loan/limit is not approved, then complainant can surrender/cancelled the policy and premium amount will be refunded without any deduction. So, he requested for release of loan/limit otherwise he can surrender/cancel the policy. In that letter, the complainant had never raised any objection to the policy nor he requested for surrender/cancellation of the policy. He had never requested for sanctioning of loan/limit of Rs.10 lacs. Opposite party had never assured the complainant that he shall be given loan/limit of Rs.10 lacs. So, opposite party informed the complainant in this regard. Thereafter, the complainant never applied for surrender/cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium amount. So, opposite party is not liable to refund the amount to the complainant. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8 From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant filled in and signed the proposal form dated
-9-
26.12.2013 and submitted the same to the opposite party for issuance of ING Secured Income Insurance Plan and he deposited Rs.50000/- as first premium. Resultanty, opposite party issued insurance policy ex.OP1,2/2 alongwith terms and conditions to the complainant on 2.1.2014 with annual premium of Rs.50000/-, premium paying term of 15 years and sum assured under the policy was Rs.568000/- for tenure of 15 years. Said policy was received by the complainant on 4.1.2014 as admitted by the complainant himself in his complaint. If the complainant was not satisfied with the policy terms and conditions, he could opt for cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium amount within free look period of 15 days from the receipt of the insurance policy but the complainant never raised any objection or dissatisfaction with the terms and conditions of the policy. However, complainant submitted that representative of the opposite party namely Mr.Aditya Sharma and Ms.Pooja have assured the complainant that they would release loan/limit of Rs.10 lacs in the name of the firm of the complainant but the opposite party did not release the loan/limit of Rs.10 lacs to the complainant. So, he sent e-mail dated 18.1.2014 ex.C-2 to the opposite party that he should be released the loan/limit of Rs.10 lacs otherwise he can apply for cancellation of the policy. Thereafter, the complainant never applied for cancellation of the policy.
-10-
9 Complainant could not produce any document nor there is any term or condition that opposite party shall release the loan/limit of Rs.10 lacs to the complainant nor the complainant could produce any evidence to prove that opposite party has ever assured the complainant that they would release the loan/limit of Rs.10 lacs to the complainant nor complainant examined or filed affidavit of said Mr.Aditya Sharma and Ms.Pooja to the effect that they assured the complainant that they would release loan/limit of Rs.10 lacs to the complainant nor complainant made said Aditya Sharma and Ms.Pooja as party to the present complaint. So, it is clear that complainant has failed to prove on record that any assurance was given by the opposite party to the complainant that they would release loan/limit of Rs.10 lacs to the complainant. Complainant has never raised any defect/dis satisfaction with the terms and conditions of the policy nor he ever directly applied for cancellation of the policy within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy i.e.4.1.2014. So, opposite party is justified in not accepting the request of the complainant for the cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium amount as per terms and conditions of the policy.
10 Resultantly, we hold that complaint is without merit and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the orders be
-11-
furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
2.11.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
(Anoop Sharma ) ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa )
Member Member
