DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 168 of 26.4.2016
Decided on: 23.4.2018
Jaspal Singh son of Sh.Ranjit Singh, resident of village Faridpur, Tehsil & District Patiala.
……………Complainant
Versus
- ING Vysya Bank and Exide Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch office-New Leela Bhawan, Patiala Punjab 147001 through its Branch Manager.
ING Vysya Banknow known asKotak Mahindra Bank Limited (as mentioned in the written version)
- ING Vysys ( Now) Exide Life Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office:Gold Hill Square Ist Floor # 690, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore-560068, through its M.D./Chairman.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.H.S.Bhutta,Advocate,counsel for complainant.
Sh.Vikas Mittal,Advocate, counsel for
Opposite Party No.1.
Sh.Amit Gupta,Advocate, counsel for
Opposite Party No.2.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Jaspal Singh , complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.).
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a non unit link life insurance policy namely “Secured Income Insurance Plus” bearing No.2706878 from the OPs on 19.6.2013. He paid Rs.99,990/- as first installment/consideration on the day of purchase of the said policy.
At the time of selling the said policy, it was assured to the complainant that policy also offered the benefit of an F.D.R.. It was also assured that the complainant would be paid back full premium paid plus 9% per annum interest on the paid amount after the completion of two years as the complainant had the option to discontinue it at any time even if one installment is paid. It was assured by the agent of the OPs that policy documents will be delivered to him within 90 days but failed to send any document despite the repeated requests and visits made by the complainant. He wrote letter dated 21.5.2014 in this regard to Op no.1.OP No.1 assured that the original policy documents would be sent within three months but till now the OPs failed to supply the policy documents. Again the complainant wrote letter dated 17.9.2014 to the OP No.1 but of no avail. In the last week of June,2015, the complainant visited the office of OP no.1 to enquire how to claim back the agreed amount. At that time, complainant was assured that his amount alongwith up to date agreed interest would be paid back within two months but no amount was paid. The complainant got sent a legal notice dated 3.9.2015 to the OPs requesting them to pay back Rs.99,990/- alongwith upto date interest. Despite the receipt of notice, the OPs neither sent any reply nor made any payment to the complainant. It is stated that the OPs except supplying the photocopies of documents did not supply any original policy documents. There is thus deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving directions to the OPs to pay Rs.99,990/- as premium paid plus Rs.20,994/- as interest; to pay rs.20,000/- as compensation as compensation alongwith litigation expenses. Any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit may also be granted.
3. On being put to notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed separate written versions. In the written version filed by OP no.1, preliminary objections have been taken that ING Vysys Bank has been merged with Kotak Mahindra Bank limited and scheme of merger was approved by RBI; that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Act; that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and ING Vysya Bank; that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is stated that OP no.1 only acts as a corporate agent in selling the policy and had only assisted the complainant in obtaining such policy. If there was any contract of insurance, the same was between the complainant and ING Vysya Life Insurance Co. now Exide Life Insurance co. Ltd. and the premium was also paid in their favour.The policy documents were also to be sent by OP no.2. The OP bank has no concern whatsoever with the policy in question. It is stated that as per clause 45 i.e. premium payment term(years) is 7 years and as per clause 46, the policy term (years) is 10 years. No letter dated 17.9.2014 was ever received by Op no.1.No Rules and guidelines of the IRDA have been violated by OP no.1.There is no deficiency of service on the part of Op no.1. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
In the written version filed by OP no.2, preliminary objections have been taken to the effect that the complaint is barred by limitation; that the complaint does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum and is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that the complainant is not an illiterate person and was well aware that policy which he opted for was life insurance policy and not any fixed deposit. The amount invested is towards the life insurance premium which in turn covers the life risk of the insured in case of any unforeseen event. The amount in such policy is only after maturity or in case of death within time frame. The premium opted by the complainant was Rs.99,990/- to be paid annually for a premium paying term of 7 years. The sum assured under the policy was Rs.4,77,600 for tenure of 10 years. The complainant had confirmed these facts in his proposal form dated 19.6.2013. Based on the answers, statements, premium amount, premium paying term opted and declaration made in the proposal form duly executed and submitted by the complainant, to be true and correct and after receipt of initial premium, the OP issued policy bearing No.02706878 to the complainant on June,2013 alongwith the terms and conditions governing the policy and a welcome letter .It is stated that as per Regulation 6(2) of ( Protection of Policyholder’s interest) Regulation 2002 issued by the IRDA, the policyholder was 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 receipt of policy bond (free look period). In such a case, the company shall refund the premium received from him for such policy(after deducting the proportionate risk premium for the period of risk cover and expenses incurred by the company on account of medical examination and on stamp duty charges). It is stated that the complainant never raised any objection to the terms and conditions thereof within 15 days of the receipt of the policy document. Hence contract of life insurance which OP had with complainant becomes legally concluded and it was presumed that complainant was satisfied with terms and conditions so issued to him and was estopped from disputing the terms and conditions of the alleged contract. It is stated that the complainant paid only one premium and restrained himself from paying renewal premiums. Policy could be cancelled within 15 days of receipt of policy bond. Beyond such free look period, it could only surrender the policy as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant did not lodge any complaint with regard to the non-receipt of the policy bond neither stated it was mis-sold as fixed deposit. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C6 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
The ld. counsel for OP no.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of sh.Inderraj singh, authorized representative of Op no.1 alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP3 and closed the evidence of OP no.1.
The ld. counsel for OP no.2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPB, affidavit of Madhu NR alongwith documents Exs.OP4 to OP6 and closed the evidence of Op no.2.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. The grievance of the complainant is that the OPs did not supply him the policy documents inspite of receipt of letters dated 21.5.2014, Ex.C3, and letter dated 17.9.2014, Ex.C4 having written by him for supply of the policy documents. Thereafter, he also got served a legal notice dated 3.9.2015, Ex.C5 upon OP no.2 but even then the insurance company did not bother to supply the policy documents. The stand of the insurance company is that it had supplied the policy documents to the complainant on 30.7.2013. To corroborate this fact, the OP No.2 has placed on record, the copy of the courier receipt ,Ex.OP6. From the perusal of the said receipt it is evident that the column meant for receiving the document has been left blank. Thus, on the basis of the said receipt, it cannot be ascertained that the OP No.2 had supplied the policy documents to the complainant on 30.7.2013. Even otherwise also the OP no.2 has not placed on record any other document showing that the policy documents have duly been received by the complainant nor it replied the letters written by the complainant for the said purpose. As such, we do not hesitate to conclude that the OP No.2 has failed to prove that it had supplied the policy documents to the complainant. The OP No.2 is thus deficient in providing services to the complainant and is liable to pay back the amount of Rs.99,990/-, paid as first installment vide receipt dated 19.6.2013, Ex.C2, against the policy in question, alongwith interest, to the complainant. OP No.2 is also liable to pay compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment alongwith litigation expenses. Our view is supported by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, in the case of The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satpal Singh Others 2014(2) CLT 305, wherein it has been held that, ‘insured not bound by terms and conditions of the insurance policy unless it is proved that policy was supplied to the insured by the insurance company’.
So far as the deficiency in rendering services on the part of OP No.1 is concerned, it may be stated here that neither any specific allegations have been leveled nor proved against it, therefore, it cannot be said to be deficient in providing services and the complaint filed against it is liable to be dismissed.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint filed against OP No.1 and the same is allowed against OP No.2. The OP No.2 is directed in the following manner:
- To pay Rs.99,990/- alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 26.4.2016 till its realization;
- To pay Rs.7000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment;
- To pay Rs.5000/-as litigation expenses.
The OP No.2 is further directed to comply the said order within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:23.4.2018
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
