Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/618/2014

Mukhpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Life Insuurance - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Harmandeep Singh Saini Adv.

31 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	618 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	28.11.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	31.12.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Mukhpreet Singh S/o Harcharan Singh, R/o H.E.257, Phase-5, SAS Nagar, Mohali.  

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance, Kotak Towers, Building No.21, Infinity Park, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon Mulund Link Road, Malad East, Mumbai 400097, through its Managing Director.

 

2]  Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance, SCF 147, Sector 9, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh.H.S.Saini, Advocate

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant on the assurance of Mr.Rohit, representative of Opposite Party Company about one insurance policy in which premium is to be paid only one time and money get doubled after 10 years, accordingly, opted to purchase the policy and gave a cheque of Rs.25,210/- in August, 2012.  The said representative also got the signatures of the complainant on the proposal form and assured the complainant that the policy papers would be sent to him. However, when the complainant did not receive the policy papers, he lodged complaint with the Opposite Party through e-mail dated 18.1.2013, whereas the OPs claimed that the policy No.02597261 was delivered to the address of the complainant on 31.8.2012 and that in order to get duplicate policy, he should submit indemnity papers at their nearest branch, but it would not attract the Free-look Clause. It is pleaded that when the complainant did not receive any policy papers, then the issue of Freelook Clause does not arise at all. The complainant did not apply for the duplicate policy.  Further, the complainant was shocked when the Opposite Party withdraws an amount of Rs.24,832/- on 27.8.2013 through ECS from his bank account and that too was done without information and providing policy to him.  The complainant agitated this matter with the Opposite Party through e-mail dated 8.12.2013 (Ann.C-2) and also wrote a number of e-mails, besides making personal visit to their office, but to no avail. Hence, alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service as well as indulgence into unfair trade practice, this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties in their reply submitted that the complainant had submitted a duly filled up and signed proposal for insurance (Ann.R-1) and also gave declaration regarding understanding of the policy, on the basis of which the policy No.02597261 was issued and dispatched to the complainant at his address, through First Flight Courier and the same was received by him on 31.08.2012 (Ann.R-2).  It is stated that the complainant retained the policy documents and did not approach the Company with any discrepancies therein neither did he approach the company for cancellation of the policy during the Free Look Period, as provided in the policy (Ann.R-3). It is also stated that the complainant had procured the said policy with tenure of 30 years with an annual premium of Rs.25,210/- with premium payment term of 15 years on yearly frequency. Further, the complainant had also submitted ECS mandate form dated 23.8.2012 authorizing the Opposite Party to deduct the renewal premiums directly from his bank account and accordingly, an amount of Rs.24,832/- as renewal premium was deducted from his account.  However, the complainant failed to make the payment of premium since 27.8.2014 despite renewal notices (Ann.R-5 & R-6) and got the policy revived.  It is pleaded that the complainant had availed the service of an independent insurance broker – Probus Insurance Broker Ltd., licensed by IRDA, over which the OPs not have any control. Further, the complainant did not apply for duplicate policy.  Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

        

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

5]      The complainant has preferred the present complaint on the score that he had subscribed for the policy of the Opposite Parties on the advise of its agent, who while securing the signatures of the complainant on the proposal form, detailed attractive features of the policy in question, and promised the complainant that for his one time investment, he would get handsome returns on completion of tenure of the policy.  The complainant had made the initial payment of premium amount by way of cheque, drawn on his bank-Punjab National Bank.  But is aggrieved of non-receipt of the policy document, even though he had repeatedly raised his demand with the Opposite Parties, but the same fell on deaf ears.

 

6]       The complainant was astonished to come to know that an amount of Rs.24,832/- was debited from his account on 27.8.2013 through an ECS request. The complainant raised this matter with the OPs through communication dated 14.12.2013 Ann.C-2/3 and even demanded the proof of the delivery of policy document at his end along with the copies of proposal form as well as other documents, which were taken into consideration by the Opposite Parties while processing the proposal for issuance of the policy in question.  The Opposite Parties while answering to the queries of the complainant had disclosed that the policy in question was delivered at complainant’s end on 31,8,2012 as per Para No.2 (Page 20 of the reply) vide POD of First Flight Courier - XD No.1257759.  However, the complainant having demanded the proof of such delivery was not supplied the same and even that the complainant without having received the policy documents, could not exercise his free look option and demand the refund of his premium amount within 15 days, as per the terms & conditions of the policy.

 

7]       The Opposite Parties while contesting the claim of the complainant, has placed on record the proof of delivery of the policy document and had also held its ground that the complainant failed to raise the matter of the cancellation of the policy within the free look period, therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable on the allegations, as mentioned in his complaint and that there is no deficiency in service in service on their part for which the relief sought could be granted.   

 

8]       The OPs have also raised the objection of non-joinder of necessary parties, claiming that the agent, who had intermediated the sale of policy to the complainant was not made a party and the allegations of mis-selling or not explaining the terms & conditions of the policy, could only be answered by them and not the answering OPs.

 

9]       We have perused the documents placed on record by the parties and are of the opinion that the complainant had subscribed for a policy of the Opposite Parties by making a payment of Rs.25,210/- on 25.8.2012 and filling-up a proposal form, which was submitted by the agent of the Opposite Party Company at their office.  The complainant having alleged non-delivery of policy documents at his end, the onus to prove the delivery of this policy in question, lay at the doors of Opposite Parties and therefore, the most relevant document to deal with this issue is Annexure R/2 (Page 30) vide which Opposite Party Company has disclosed the delivery of the policy document at the complainant’s end on 31.8.2012. A minute perusal of this document, indicates that the entry at Sr. No.6, which corresponds to the POD No.XD 1257759, is delivered to one Surinder Kaur with Mobile No.9814001614 and the same has been signed as Simmi in Hindi vernacular.  It can be therefore safely concluded that the policy document in question under the captioned POD number, was not delivered to the complainant Mukhpreet Singh, but was to one Surinder Kaur, who even did not figured in the list of family member of the complainant, as there is no such name found mentioned in the Ration Card, placed on record by the complainant as Ann.C-3.  Hence, the allegations of the complainant that the Opposite Parties failed to deliver the policy document, to him at his address, are proved right and the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant, as in the absence of policy document, the complainant could not avail the free-look period and that even after a passage of nearly 3½ years, since Aug., 2012, the policy document in question is still untraceable.

        

10]      It is therefore held that the Opposite Parties have failed in providing the original policy document to the complainant at the first instance, and then without confirming their own records, rejected the demand of the complainant to issue the policy document to him again.  The Opposite Parties had even failed to answer the demand of such document, which were considered by them at the time of issuance of the policy, as the same are still found wanting by not placing on record such document, so that this Forum could satisfy itself that the policy in question was issued on the basis of such documents which were necessary and were provided by the complainant.  This fact compels us to reach a conclusion that the Opposite Parties not only rushed through the process of issuance of the policy to the complainant without taking proper documents, but in order to cover up their own fault, preferred not to deliver the policy document to the complainant but to someone else namely Surinder Kaur, who signed the receipt of the document as Simmi in Hindi vernacular.

 

11]      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed against Opposite parties jointly and severally and they are directed as under:-

 

[a] To refund the premium amounts of the complainant totaling Rs.50,042/- (Rs.25,210 + Rs.24,832/-) minus administrative charges, as applicable under free look period;

 

[b] To pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service;

 

[c] To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7,000/-

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties jointly & severally; thereafter, they shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above, from the date of filing this complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

31^st December, 2015                                                            

                                                                        Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Om                                                                                                                       

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.618 OF 2014

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 31st day of December, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member