Complainant Joginder Singh has filed the present complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short Act) has prayed for the issuance of necessary directions to the titled opposite parties being the various offices of Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited, to return the amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by him with the opposite parties alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of due till its actual realization and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment and litigation expenses to him.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is old aged Retired Person and is Senior citizen, upon the insistence of opposite party he purchased the policy No.02447592 and it was allured by the opposite parties to him that after 15 years, the opposite parties would have paid Rs.4,77,626/- to him as sum assured against the single premium amount paid by him. Thereafter, the situation became worst, as after 1 year of the purchase of the said policy, the officials of the opposite parties approached to him and demanded premium amount for next year. He was shocked when he heard that he will have to deposit the next installment, as at the time of receiving the policy, the opposite parties have allured that this is a single premium installment. But the opposite parties did not hear his legal and genuine request. He has made request to the opposite party no.2 to intervene into the matter and to return the amount of premium paid by him alongwith interest, but all his requests were put on deaf ears of the opposite parties. He has further pleaded that on account of his repeated requests and several visits opposite party no.2 asked him to approach OMBUDSMAN. Accordingly he has approached OMBUDSMAN, but his claim was rejected. This act of the opposite parties to change his policy from single installment to multiple installments is illegal, null and void, against the rules and regulations, ultravires, against the natural justice and against the instructions. Moreover, a person who is earning hardly Rs.2,00,000/- per year cannot be supposed to pay such huge premium per year. He has next pleaded that the cause of action was arisen on receiving the alleged order of the OMBUDSMAN. And the cause of action has lastly arisen few days ago when the opposite parties finally refused to admit his claim. On account of this illegal act on the part of the opposite parties, he has suffered huge financial loss, physical and mental torture and unnecessary harassment for no fault on his part, which amounts to deficiency, gross negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 to 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written reply taking preliminary objections that of maintainability of the complaint, barred by period of limitation, jurisdiction and the present complaint was not maintainable as the complaint is not covered under the definition of consumer under the Act. Further the complainant has miserably failed to pin point any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and as such the complaint was not maintainable under the Act. Complainant was also provided with the option to cancel insurance in question during the 15 days free look period but he did not avail himself of the option instead decide to continue with the insurance policy and presently he is estopped to regal out of the accepted and duly acknowledged clauses of the insurance agreement pertaining to the insurance policy in question. It was next admitted that the policy No.2052638 was issued for the sum assured of Rs.7,50,000/- in the name of the complainant. The averments of the complainant in the present complaint with regards to the phone call received from the opposite party regarding the new insurance product and allurement made to the complainant about bonus which tunes to 2-3% from the Company’s Annual Profit or the annual bonus of Rs.10 lacs per year will be received by the complainant if he buy another policy from the opposite party and bonus will be issued and deposited in his account after completion of 1 year are completely false, frivolous and concocted story. Hence same is denied vehemently. Further it is added that complainant himself had opted premium paying tern of 10 years as yearly mode and had paid four years premium under the subject policy. Further it was also submitted that the complainant had got his premium reduced from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.15000/- in the year 2013 after paying 3 years premium of Rs.1,50,000/- and the sum assured was revised as accordingly to Rs.75,000/-. While denying and controverting other allegations, the opposite party has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint been prayed to be dismissed with costs.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex C-1, along with the other documents exhibited as Ex C2 to Ex C7 and closed the evidence.
5. On the other hand, the opposite parties No.1 to 2 tendered into evidence affidavits of Shakil Ahmad presently working as Senior Manager Legal Kotak Mohindra Ex.OP1 alongwith other documents exhibited as Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.
7. From the pleadings and evidence on record it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased an insurance policy bearing No.02447592 from the opposite parties and as such is a consumer of the opposite parties. The main grievance of the complainant besides other false allurements is that she purchased the policy taking this to be a single premium plan policy and she was shocked when she came to know about the regular plan policy for a period of Ten (10) years after a gap of one year when the officials of the opposite parties demanded premium amount for the 2nd year. The complainant has even approached the OMBUDSMAN but her claim was rejected vide order Ex.OP8.
8. On the other hand the counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the complainant had submitted a duly filled up and signed proposal form for insurance opting for yearly premium of Rs.1,00,000/-. The complainant even had signed a Benefit illustration after fully understanding the terms and conditions of the policy. The policy document was dispatched to the complainant on 20.07.2010 through Overnite Courier via an AWB No.591630704 and the same was duly received by the complainant on 23.7.2010. The counsel for the opposite parties further argued that every policy document sent by it is accompanied by a forwarding letter which clearly mentions that in case policyholder is not satisfied with the features or the terms and conditions of the policy he can withdraw/return the policy within 15 days Free Look Period but in the present complaint complainant chose to retain the policy. The complainant has not even paid the renewal premiums and due to non payment of the premiums, the policy lapsed and now as per the terms and conditions nothings is payable since the policy even did not acquire any surrender value.
9. From the entire above discussion we find that the policy terms and conditions alongwith a copy of proposal form were sent by the opposite parties and the same were duly received by the complainant. The complainant retained the policy document and did not approach the company with any discrepancies regarding premium payment, benefits and the terms and conditions, neither did she approach the company for cancellation of the policy during the Free Look Period meaning thereby that she had agreed to the terms and conditions of the policy and hence now cannot be allowed to take a contradictory view and come up with vague stories that too without any cogent evidence or proof. In fact, the request for refund was made after a lapse of more than one year from the date of purchase of policy. The complainant is estopped from raising the grievances with respect to refund of premium of the policy in dispute and she is bound by the policy contract and terms and conditions. Hence, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and as such finding no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
10. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.
(Naveen Puri)
President
Announced: (Jagdeep Kaur)
March 13, 2015 Member
*MK*
