Haryana

Panchkula

CC/29/2018

KUMAR VISHAV AGGARWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD & OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON

25 Apr 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	29 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	09.02.2018
Date of Decision	:	25.04.2019

 

Kumar Vishav Aggarwal son of Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, R/o House No.152, Sector 4, Panchkula.

                                                                           ….Complainant

 

Versus

1. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. SCO No.231, Sector 9, Panchkula.

 

2. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited, SCO No.153-154-155, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

 

3. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited, 7^th floor Kotak infiniti, Building No.21 infinity part, Malad, Mumbai.

….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:              Mr.Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr.Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person. 

                        Mr. Jatin Sherawat, Advocate for OP No.1.

                        Mr. Chetan Gupta, Advocate for OPs No.2 and 3.

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.     The brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant opened a saving account and deposited a sum of Rs.1 lac as fixed deposit with the OPs No.2 and 3. On the suggestion of employees of OP No.2, the complainant also paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- for insurance policy on 07.11.2012 for a period of fifteen years (wrongly mentioned as five years) under the apprehension that complainant will also get benefit in income tax. The OPs No.2 and 3 stated that policy will be sent by post within a week. The complainant approached many times to the employees of OP No.2 for policy documents but every time they kept on delaying the issue. The complainant has not received the policy documents and other benefits so he closed his saving account and fixed deposit with grievance. It was assured by the OPs No.2 and 3 that complainant will get back the amount invested in policy in the month of October 2015 after a period of three years. Thereafter, on 26.08.2013, complainant had sent one complaint through mail and requested for withdrawal of amount and for non receiving of policy documents. Reply of the same was received on 04.09.2013 through mail stating therein that the information is incomplete and requested for sending the complete information. On 09.09.2013, the complainant sent the complete details of grievance through mail. Thereafter, complainant received phone from the OPs No.2 and 3 who gave assurance for solution. After that one executive officer of OPs No.2 and 3 also visited the office of complainant and he write down the complaint and assured that the money will be refunded very soon. In a span of two years many officers visited the office of complainant and many telephonic calls received by the complainant from the OPs No.2 and 3. They admitted their default and gave assurance for refund of money after 03 years locking period. On 22.08.2015, complainant received first correspondence (letter) from the side of OPs No.2 and 3 in writing stated that the policy was in lapse mode. On 11.09.2015 complainant replied the said letter and requested for refund of amount on account of non receipt of policy. On 14.09.2015, complainant received one letter from OP stating therein that complaint has been registered and same shall be resolved by 29.09.2015. On 24.09.2015, complainant received another letter from the OPs No.2 and 3 in which claim of refund was rejected. Thereafter, on 28.09.2015, complainant sent the detailed reply to rejection letter dated 24.09.2015. Thereafter, OPs No.2 and 3 vide their letter dated 18.01.2016 sought some time to resolve the issue. Thereafter, complainant sent many reminders i.e. on 28.01.2016, 25.02.2016, 18.04.2016, 21.05.2016, 29.06.2016, 10.08.2016 and 15.09.2016. The complainant sent many emails complaints to the office of OPs No.2 and 3; but of no use. They never admitted their fault or sent the fresh policy documents neither they refunded the hardcore money. On 27.10.2016, the complainant filed complaint bearing registration No. CHD-L-026-1617-1186, before Insurance Ombudsman, Sector 17, Chandigarh. In this regard, the office of Ombudsman directed the OPs No.2 and 3 to file the requisite documents. On 12.01.2018, the complainant received one letter from the office of ombudsman that matter cannot be hear as the post is lying vacant and you make take up the matter with any other court. Thereafter, OPs No.2 and 3 were saying that policy documents were sent and same were received by some Rajesh; whereas complainant specifically stated that there is no such person residing in his house. Despite request, OPs No.2 and 3 failed to supply the delivery receipt. The complainant had never received the policy documents, so there is no question arises for paying the next premium; this act and conduct of the OPs No.2 and 3 amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.2 and 3; hence, this complaint.

2.     Upon notice, the OPs No.2 and 3 have appeared to contest the complaint by filing their separate written statement.

        In its written statement, the OP No.1 taking some preliminary objections has stated that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant; that the present complaint is time barred. The OP No.1 stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and the OP No.1 has been unnecessarily dragged in the present complaint. The complainant has purchased the policy for investment purposes, as such the complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer. The allegations in the present complaint relate to a claim in respect of the policy of life insurance which has been availed form the OPs No.2 and 3. The OP No.1 is a bank and is not in the business of life insurance. The policy was purchased by the complainant in the year 2012 and the complainant claims to have sent the letter for withdrawal of amount on 26.08.2013. Further as per the admitted case of the complainant the claim for refund was rejected by OPs No.2 and 3 on 24.09.2015.

        The complainant had availed Rs.50,000/- insurance policy bearing policy No.02624552 from OPs No.2 and 3. The OP No.1 being the corporate agent of KLI had assisted the complainant in obtaining such insurance policy by assisting in completion of the required formalities and forwarding the duly filled documents to KLI (OPs No.2 and 3). The contract of insurance is between the complainant and OPs No.2 and 3 and the amount paid as premium is in favour of OPs No.2 and 3 and policy documents are issued directly to the complainant by KLI itself. The said policy has been purchased by the complainant on his own volition. The OP No.1 as a corporate agent had explained all terms to the complainant, who being educated individual had affixed his signatures in the proposals form after having made a declaration to the effect that he is submitting the proposal form after having made a declaration to the effect that he is submitting the proposals form after having read and understood the product features, benefits, risks factors, structure of charges, terms and conditions of the proposed plan. If the complainant has any issues relating to the said policy documents, its status, maturity amount or sum assured or refund or otherwise, complainant needs to get in touch with OPs No.2 and 3. It is denied that the OP No.1 has ever given any assurance on policy documents or on refund of the amount of the policy. The OP No.1 is not liable to refund any amount or pay any compensation under the said policy to complainant.     

        On merits, pleas and assertions made in the preliminary objections have been reiterated and it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

        In their written statement, the OPs No.2 and 3 are denied all the allegations contained in the complaint with the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; that no cause of action has arisen against the OPs No.2 and 3; that the present complaint is time barred; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint; that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands. It is submitted that the complainant has submitted a duly filled and signed proposal and the policy has been issued as per the details submitted by the complainant. The policy was issued by the OPs No.2 and 3 only when the complainant became well conversant with the terms and conditions of the said policy documents. It is stated that under the said policy foreclosure intimation was sent to the complainant on 24.10.2015. Therefore, the limitation period for filing a consumer complaint had expired on 24.10.2017 itself, whereas the present complaint has clearly been filed on 05.02.2018. It is submitted that the policy is a legal contract between policy holder and the insurance company and parties to it are bound by its terms and conditions. Admittedly, the proposal form was signed by the complainant and on the basis of the said proposal form, the subject policy was issued by the OPs No.2 and 3. If a person signs any document it is presumed that he/she has signed after reading it and understanding it properly. Therefore, any benefit to the complainant is payable as per the policy terms and conditions and the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore, not entitled to receive the death claim as alleged. It is stated that every policy document sent by it is accompanied by a forwarding letter which clearly mentions that in case policy holder is not satisfied with the features or the terms and conditions of the policy, he can withdraw/return the policy within 15 days i.e. under the “Free Look Period”. It is stated that the complainant never approached the OPs No.2 and 3 during the free look period raising any objection on the policy terms and conditions. Thus, the policy and its terms and conditions are binding to the Life Assured and any benefit arising out of it would be settled as per the terms and conditions of the subject policy. The complainant first approached the company with grievance regarding the policy in September 2015 which was over two years after issuance of the policy. The policy document was delivered to the complainant’s address on 12.11.2012 through First Flight Courier AWB No.XD0893997. The complainant did not raise any complaint regarding the alleged non-delivery of the policy document till over 2 years after issuance of the policy. Further, the OPs No.2 and 3 made welcome calls to the complainant after issuance of the policy wherein it was confirmed by the complainant that he had received the policy document and was satisfied with the terms and conditions. It is stated that there has been neither any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs nor the complainant is entitled for relief from this Forum. The complainant has voluntarily opted for the frequency of premium as yearly for a policy term of 15 years. It is stated that a copy of proposal forms is sent to the policy holders along with the policy document, thereby, giving an opportunity to the policy holders to re-examine the replies made by him in the proposal for and get the details rectified in case of any discrepancies in the proposal form. In the present case, the policy documents were dispatched to the complainant at the address mentioned in the proposal form through First Flight Courier AWB No.XD0893997. The complainant signified that the policy document/terms and conditions of the policy was duly acceptable to him and he has no grievance whatsoever with the same.

        The complainant under the said policy paid the first year’s premium in parts on 22.10.2012 and 03.11.2012. The second premium, which was due to be paid on 22.10.2013, remained unpaid. As per the Clause 2 of the policy document, the premium have to be paid within 30 days of due date, otherwise the policy is lapsed. As per Clause 3, lapsed policy can be revived within 6 months by making payment of the due premium. If more than 6 months have elapsed from the non-payment, then the policy holder has to submit evidence of good health for renewal of the lapsed policy. The OPs No. 2 and 3 sent the complainant a lapse intimation letter dated 22.02.2014 informing therein that the policy had moved into lapse mode with effect from 26.11.2013 and the same could be revived by payment of the pending premium. However, the complainant chose not to act on this letter and the policy remained in lapse mode. As no further premiums were received, the OPs No.2 and 3 sent the complainant a foreclosure intimation dated 23.08.2015 and subsequently a foreclosure letter on 24.10.2015. The policy was continued and eventually terminated as per the terms and conditions mentioned under the policy document. The complainant was sent all the relevant documents and even reminders regarding the premiums. However, the complainant did not pay any premium after the first premium. Therefore, the policy was foreclosed without acquiring any surrender/foreclosure value and the same was intimated to the complainant.

        Regarding non-delivery of policy document, it is stated that the complainant did not approach the company regarding this issue till September 2015. Further, as per the company’s record, the policy document has been delivered and the same has also been confirmed by the complainant during the welcome calls made to him by the company.

        On merits, it has been stated that complainant deposited the premium amount in two parts. The first part was by way of cheque amounting to Rs.20,000/- on 22.10.2012 and the second part was by cheque amounting to Rs.30,000/- on 03.11.2012. The first complaint was received by the OPs No.2 and 3 on 14.09.2015. No previous grievance had been lodged by the complainant in regard to the policy and therefore the policy was continued as per the terms and conditions. Further, the complainant had also confirmed in the welcome calls made to him that he had received the policy document. The policy documents had been delivered to the complainant’s address and he has acknowledged receipt of the same in the welcome calls made to him by the OPs No.2 and 3. Remaining pleas and assertions made in the preliminary objections have been reiterated and it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.2 and 3 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

3.     In the replication/rejoinder filed by the complainant, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the OPs. It is stated that complainant had invested his hardcore money and same cannot be gulped away be the OPs. No steps were taken by the OPs No.2 and 3 since the date of taking money. Rather false and frivolous stands were taken by them in order to shield their fraud staff. At the time of investment of money, complainant had signed only one form, rest were the details orally presented by the representatives of the OPs. Terms and conditions of policy will be in black and white only when one receives the policy documents whereas, the OPs fail to supply policy documents. It is stated that OPs are service provider in form of selling policies to consumers. Therefore, complainant is duly been comes under the definition of consumer as such requested for acceptance of the complaint.   

4.     To prove his case, the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure CA along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-11 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit Annexure R1/A along with document Annexure R-1/1 and closed the evidence. The ld. counsel for the OPs No. 2 and 3 tendered affidavit Annexure R2/A along with document Annexure R-2/1 to R-2/3 and closed the evidence.

5.     We have heard the complainant, ld. counsels for OPs and gone through the record carefully and minutely.

It is evident that the complainant availed the insurance policy, namely, Kotak Capital Multiplier Plan bearing No.02624552 for a term of 15 years by making a payment of premium amount of Rs.49,999/- on 07.11.2012. It is also evident that the premium was to be paid on yearly basis. It is also clear that the above said policy lapse on 22.10.2013 on account of non-payment of yearly premium. It is not disputed that the complainant has opened a saving account with the OPs No.2 and 3 by depositing a sum of Rs.1 lac as fixed deposit. It is also not disputed that the complainant closed the saving account by withdrawing the amount of Rs.1 lac deposited in fixed deposit. The grievances of the complainant are that the OPs No.2 and 3 did not provide the copy of the aforesaid insurance policy bearing No.02624552 along with its terms and conditions to him despite his several requests made through personal visits in the office of the OPs No.2 and 3 as also through emails. It has been alleged that he is entitled to the refund of deposited amount of Rs.49,999/- as the OPs No.2 and 3 have failed to deliver the said insurance policy documents along with its terms and conditions to him.

On the other hand, the OPs No.2 and 3 have resisted the contention of the complainant stating that the present complaint is time barred and that the insurance policy in question was duly delivered to the complainant at his registered mailing address through AWB No.XD0893997, First Flight Courier. The OPs No.2 and 3 have alleged that the complainant had submitted a duly filled and signed proposal and thus, he is bound by the terms and conditions of the policy. It is the further version of the OPs No.2 and 3 that the complainant could have opted to cancel the insurance policy within the free look period of 15 days from the issue of the policy and thereafter, he has no right to seek the cancellation of the policy. It has been alleged that the policy has lapsed on 22.10.2013 and thus there is no question of refund of any amount.

6.     Before proceeding further to discuss the case on its merit, we deem it proper to discuss and decide the issue of limitation first. The ld. counsel appearing on behalf of OPs No.2 and 3 vehemently contended that the foreclosure intimation of the said insurance policy was sent to the complainant on 24.10.2017 itself. The ld. counsel contended that the present complaint has been filed on 05.02.2018, which is clearly after the prescribed period of limitation for which no satisfactory explanation has been provided by the complainant. In support of his contention, the ld. counsel placed reliance upon law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case titled as Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Reported in 2009, CPJ 75 (SC). The ld. counsel also placed reliance upon the law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission (New Delhi) in cases titled as T. Seshaiah and Anr. Vs. Standard Chartered Bank and Anr., P.M.S. Enterprises and Ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Anr. F.A No.192 of 2004, D/d 12.11.2009, S.V. Hari Vs. Mysore Urban Development Authority, reported in 2013(4) C.P.J. 182, D/d 11.09.2013,  Smt. Harbhajan Sharma Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and anr., R.P No.2293 of 2011, D/d 20.01.2015, Sanjay Singh Vs. Baby Chandna & Ors., R.P. No. 2208-2209, D/d 08.09.2015 and Karam Chand Vs. Punjab National Bank and anr., R.P. No. 1095 of 2018, D/o 17.05.2018. The ld. counsel also placed reliance upon the law laid down by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad, Gujarat in case titled as Dariyavesingh B. Karnawat Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, reported in 2005(2), C.P.J. 729, D/d 17.12.2004. The ld. counsel further placed reliance upon the law laid down by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in case titled as Bhaktimoyee Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors. in Case No.CC/09/2009 D/d 26.11.2010. The ld. counsel further placed reliance upon the law laid down by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh in case titled as United India Insurance Company Vs. Ms. Saleena Rani, in FA No.305 of 2014, decided on 13.10.2014. Placing reliance upon the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, National Commission and State Commission in the cases (supra), the ld. counsel vehemently contended that the present complaint is time barred and hence, deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.

The complainant while reiterating the facts as contained in the complaint supported with his affidavit Annexure CA as also the documents Annexure C-1 to C-11 controverted the version of the OPs No.2 and 3 with regard to limitation stating that his request for refund of amount of Rs.49,999/- on account of non furnishing of the insurance policy to him was declined by the OPs No.2 and 3 vide letter dated 24.09.2015 to which he made a detailed representation to the OPs No.2 and 3 on 28.09.2015 vide letter Annexure C-8. The ld. counsel contended that the complainant in response to his representation dated 28.09.2015 (Annexure C-8) received an email from the OP on 18.01.2016 (Annexure C-9) mentioning that the OPs No.2 and 3 are working on the concerns raised by the complainant and they shall response to him within stipulated period. The complainant stated that he sent various emails and reminders as on 28.01.2016, 25.02.2016, 18.04.2016, 21.05.2016, 29.06.2016, 10.08.2016 and 15.09.2016, which are available on record as Annexure C-10; but no response was received from the OPs No.2 and 3. The complainant also stated that he filed a complaint with office of Ombudsman on 15.09.2016, wherein he received a letter dated 12.01.2018 advising him that there was no ombudsman and he could approach any court of law.  The ld. counsel placed reliance in support of his contention on the case titled as Addi Industries Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & other, OP No.300 of 1998, decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 16.07.2007.

7.     After hearing the complainant as well as the ld. counsel for the OPs No.2 and 3 and perusing the relevant record available on the file, we find that the request of the complainant with regard to the refund of his deposited amount of Rs.49,999/- was declined by the OPs No.2 and 3 vide letter dated 24.09.2015 mentioning several grounds therein to which the complainant represented to the OPs No.2 and 3 on 28.09.2015 (Annexure C-8). The OPs No.2 and 3 informed the complainant vide letter dated 18.01.2016, which is on record as Annexure C-9, that they were working on the concerns raised by him and they (OPs No.2 and 3) would respond to him (complainant). The said letter dated 18.01.2016 (Annexure C-9) is reproduced as under:-

“We are in receipt of the below email from your end. We are working on the concerns raised by you and we shall respond to you within the stipulated time. Request for your kind cooperation till then.”

8.     We also find that the complainant has been pursuing the matter in question with the OPs No.2 and 3 and was in constant touch with them after receipt of said email dated 18.01.2016 (Annexure C-9) as is evident from various emails as contained in Annexure C-10. It is also not disputed that the complainant approached office of ombudsman, but due to the post of the ombudsman being lying vacant, the complainant was advised to approach any court of law. We do not find any response of the OPs No.2 and 3 on record after their said email dated 18.01.2016 (Annexure C-9) informing the complainant that they were working on the concerns raised by him and they would respond to him within the stipulated time. In the considered opinion of this Forum the cause of action is continuing one since 18.01.2016 as the OPs No.2 and 3 have not responded to the complainant either accepting or rejecting his request. Thus, the plea of limitation as raised by the OPs No.2 and 3 is hereby rejected. The law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, National Commission and State Commission, the ld. counsel for OPs No.2 and 3 in various cases (supra) is not disputed but the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present complaint. We may rely upon the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd., & National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd., wherein it has been held that-in our opinion, in a dispute concerning a consumer, it is necessary for the courts to take a pragmatic view of the rights of the consumer principally since it is the consumer who is placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the supplier of services or goods- it is to overcome this disadvantage that a beneficent legislation in the form of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted by Parliament-the provision of limitation in the Act cannot be strictly construed to disadvantage a consumer in a case where a supplier of goods or services itself is instrumental in causing a delay in the settlement of the consumer’s claim.

9.     Now, adverting the merits of the case, we find that the request of the complainant with regard to the refund of his amount of Rs.49,999/- in respect to the above mentioned insurance policy has been declined by the OPs No.2 and 3 vide letter dated 24.09.2015 (Annexure C-7). The ld. counsel for the OPs No.2 and 3 contended that the policy documents along with its terms and conditions were dispatched and delivered to the complainant at his registered mailing address on 08.11.2012 through AWB No.XD0893997, First Flight Courier. The ld. counsel stated that the policy documents were delivered to the complainant on 12.11.2012 through said courier agency and that the complainant was at liberty to revoke or cancel the insurance policy within the free look period of 15 days, which he failed to do so and thus his request for refund of amount of Rs.49,999/- has rightly been declined. The ld. counsel further stated that the complainant has submitted the duly filled and signed proposal to them and thus, his is bound by the terms and conditions of the policy. In support of his contention, the ld. counsel placed reliance upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case tilted as Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Garg Sons International 2013 (1) SCALE 410;  Suraj Mal Ram Niwal Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 567] & Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Madhavacharya (Revision Petition No.211 of 2009). The ld. counsel contended that the OPs No.2 and 3 are not bound by any commitments or statements made by the agents as held by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Prema & ors. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, reported as IV (2006) CPJ 239 (NC). The ld. counsel asserted that there is no willful default or lapse on the part of the OPs No.2 and 3 while delivering the services to the complainant and in this regard, the ld. counsel placed reliance upon the law laid down in case titled as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines [(2000) 1 SCC 66].  The ld. counsel also placed reliance upon the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharti Knitting Company vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier (1996)4 SCC 704; wherein it was held that when the complainant signs the contract documents, he is bound by its terms & conditions and the onus would be on him to prove the terms and conditions, in case of objections in future, if any, which he has signed the contract.

Concluding the arguments, the ld. counsel placed reliance upon the law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Siba Prasad Dash, reported as IV (2008) CPJ 156 (NC) and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

On the other hand, the complainant while reiterating his version and facts as contained in the complaint duly submitted by his affidavit Annexure CA as also the documents Annexure C-1 to C-11 stated that he never received the policy documents along with terms and conditions from the OPs No.2 and 3 and thus, he was deprived of his right to cancel or revoke the policy within the free look period.

10.    After hearing both the parties and going through the entire record available on the file, we find that the complainant raised his concern with regard to non delivery of the documents on 26.08.2013 vide email Annexure C-1, which is reproduced as under:-

“I have invested a sum of Rs.50,000/- with Kotak Life on 07.11.2012 at the time of investment it was promised by the agents that money can be withdrawn at any point of time secondly nothing will be deducted from the invested amount. Thirdly policy will reach by registered post within 15 days. Till date I have not received the copy of policy. When contacted with branch, Sector 9, Panchkula, they said we can’t help as it’s a Life policy matter. Whereas I have invested the amount through the said branch. I requested for withdrawal of amount, same was denied on the ground that before 5 years I cannot withdraw.”     

        In response to said email Annexure C-1, the complainant received a communication (Annexure C-2) from the OPs No.2 and 3 asking him to send the complete details of the insurance policy in question to them. We further find that the complainant again requested the OPs No.2 and 3 on 09.09.2013 for the refund of his deposited amount mentioning his grievances vide Annexure C-3. It is pertinent to mention here that after 09.09.2013 till 22.08.2015 the OPs No.2 and 3 slept over the grievances of the complainant as raised by him vide said Annexure C-1 and C-3. The OPs No.2 and 3 vide dated 22.08.2015 (Annexure C-4) provided the complainant foreclosure intimation of policy and in response to said foreclosure intimation, the complainant again conveyed his grievances on 11.09.2015 (Annexure C-5). Thereafter, the OPs No.2 and 3 informed the complainant on 14.09.2015 vide letter Annexure C-6 that his complaint has been registered and thereafter the complainant was informed vide letter dated 24.09.2015 (Annexure C-7) declining his request regarding the refund of Rs.49999/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the OPs No.2 and 3 apart from the above mentioned grounds also rejected the claim of the complainant mentioning that the complainant did not raise any concerns with regard to the policy when he contacted the OPs No.2 and 3 in December 2014 with regard to change of his address. Controverting the facts and version of the OPs No.2 and 3 as contained in aforesaid rejection letter Annexure C-7, the complainant sent a detailed representation reiterating his version that he never received the policy documents and that he never contacted the OPs No.2 and 3 in December 2014 with regard to change of his address. From the above discussion, it is clear that the whole controversy in the matter revolves around the issue whether the policy documents were delivered to the complainant or not as alleged by the OPs No.2 and 3. In this regard we do not find any courier slip of the courier agency, namely, First Flight Courier and no other record from the office of courier agency. The OPs No.2 and 3 have failed to prove that the complainant has ever signed the courier slip. In this regard we agree with the law laid down by Hon’ble Commission, Chandigarh in case titled as ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited vs. Jasjit Walia decided on 22.01.2013. We have seen that it is constant, specific and categorical version of the complainant from the very beginning that he did not receive the policy documents along with its terms and conditions. In view of the aforesaid constant, specific and categorical version of the complainant with regard to non receipt of policy documents along with its terms and conditions, it was incumbent upon the OPs No.2 and 3 to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, the delivery of insurance policy documents to the complainant. The OPs No.2 and 3 have not bothered to produce any evidence in the shape of documentary record or affidavit of the official of the courier agency, who delivered the said documents to the complainant. In the absence of courier slip or any other record it may legitimately be concluded that the policy documents along with its terms and conditions were never delivered to the complainant as alleged. It is well settled proposition of law that mere bald assertions not corroborated by credible and cogent evidence carries no evidentiary value and thus, the plea of the OPs No.2 and 3 regarding delivery of the policy documents along with its terms and conditions to the complainant is rejected. In view of the clear finding of this Forum to the fact that policy documents along with its terms and conditions were not delivered to the complainant then the plea of the OPs No.2 and 3 with regard to right of the complainant to cancel or revoke the insurance policy within the free look period is of no avail to them. Further, we have also found that the mailing address of the complainant did not change since 26.08.2013 till the filing of the complaint, hence, one of the ground taken in the rejection letter dated 24.09.2015 (Annexure C-7) with regard to change of address is wrong and incorrect. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we have no hesitation to conclude that there has been lapse and deficiency on the part of OPs No.2 and 3 while declining the request of the complainant to refund of Rs.49,999/-. Hence, the complainant is entitled to relief. As discussed above, the OP No.1 is not liable to compensate the complainant and hence, the complaint is dismissed qua OP No.1.  

11.    As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow and dispose of the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs No.2 and 3.

1. To refund of Rs.49999/- along with interest @ 9% per annum to the complainant w.e.f. the date of filing of this complaint till realization.
2. To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation.

 

12.    The OPs No.2 and 3 shall comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum for initiation of proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of CP Act, against the OPs No.2 and 3. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

25.04.2019    Dr.Sushma Garg   Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini           Satpal

                            Member              Member                              President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                         Satpal

                                         President