Delhi

StateCommission

FA/13/167

SHANKAR LAL MAHESHWARI - Complainant(s)

Versus

KOTAK MAHINDRA OLD MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Oct 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 21.10.2016

 

First Appeal – 167/2013

(Arising out of the order dated 10.01.2013 passed by the District Forum, Saini Enclave, Delhi in complaint case No. 578/2010)

 

        In the Matter of:

 

                Shankar Lal Maheshwari

          Son of Sh. I.C. Maheshwari,

          R/o A-18, RST Enclave,

          Johripur Road Extension

          Delhi

……Appellant     Versus   1. The Chief Operating officer Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Ins. Ltd. Central Processing Centre 8th Floor Goodrej Coliseum Behind Everard Nagar Sion (East) Mumbai- 400022   2. The Branch Manager Kotak Mahindra, Old Mutual Life Ins. Ltd. At 8th Floor, Roots Tower Laxmi Nagar District Centre Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092                                                                           …….Respondents

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1.     This is an appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short ‘the Act’) against order dated 10.01.2013 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East) Saini Enclave, Delhi (in short the ‘District Forum’) in complaint case No. 578/10 where the aforesaid case has been dismissed by the Ld. District Forum.

2.     Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are as under:

        The appellant herein was the complainant before the Ld. District Forum. A complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act was filed by him stating therein that on 31.03.2009 the appellant/complainant subscribed to respondents/OPs life insurance policy by paying first year premium of Rs. 36,000/-. The appellant/complainant had alleged that the respondent/OP had assured that he had to deposit only three annual premium of Rs. 36,000/- each and the policy was to remain valid for 20 years including covering the risk of the life to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000/-. It was alleged that in the month of March 2010 the appellant/complainant contacted respondent/OP for deposit of second premium when he came to know that the policy would not be continued if he paid only three annual premiums and rather he had to pay premiums for number of years. Thereupon, he did not deposit second premium and issued notice to the respondent/OP-1. However, no response was given. He also contacted the officials of respondent/OP for refund of the amount but of no result. He also contacted the respondent/OP and stated that he was ready to pay premium subject to the confirmation of the assurance given at the time of taking the policy. However, no response was given. Thereupon the appellant/complainant filed a complaint before the Ld. District Forum seeking direction against the respondent/OP to continue the policy of the appellant/complainant against 3 annual premiums of Rs. 36,000/- each including life risk cover and also prayed for grant of compensation and cost.

3.             The complaint was contested by respondent/OP by filing written statement wherein it was admitted that the policy was taken by the appellant/complainant. However, the same was subject to policy terms and conditions of the policy and there was no deficiency in service on their part. It was alleged that appellant/complainant was satisfied with the policy and had understood the terms and thereafter had opted for payment of 20 years premium of Rs. 36,000/- annually. The proposal form and policy was issued to him on 31.03.2009 and documents were also sent to him. It was alleged that 15 days freelook period was there in the terms and conditions of the policy for reconsidering the decision regarding the purchase of policy. It was alleged that if appellant/complainant was not satisfied with policy, he would have been exercised his option within the free look period. It was prayed that complainant was liable to be dismissed.

4.             Both parties filed evidence in the form of affidavit.

5.             After hearing the parties the Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint by observing that no document was placed on record by the appellant/complainant to substantiate the allegations that the policy shall remain in force if he pays only premiums for three years. It was also observed that the policy also provides that the policy can be surrendered only after 3 years and basic premiums were to be paid. Ld. District Forum observed that since in the present case, the relevant terms and conditions of the policy and also while forwarding the policy along with terms and conditions of policy, a letter was issued to appellant/complainant informing that in case he was not agreeable to any of the provisions stated in the policy, then he had the option to return the policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of policy. The appellant/complainant did not exercise his option as such complaint had no merits and dismissed the same.

6.             Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the present appeal is filed.

7.             No one has appeared on behalf of appellant/complainant despite awaiting. Even on the last date of hearing, none had appeared for the appellant/complainant.     

8.             We have heard the counsel for the respondent/OP and perused the record.

9.             The main ground of challenge raised in the appeal is that appellant/complainant was misguided by the respondent/OP at the time of selling the policy. The terms and conditions were never given to him at the time of accepting the premium. It is also contended the appellant/complainant had filed the circular of 3 years lock in period dated 12.01.2012 in the District Forum and the same was not considered.

10.            On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the respondent/OP has stated that no such circular as is stated above was filed before the Ld. District Forum or before this Commission. It is submitted that there is no such circular as is alleged in the grounds of appeal. Further nothing is shown as to how the alleged circular help the appellant/complainant.

11.            There is nothing on record to show that the appellant/complainant was misguided by the respondent/OP as is alleged by the representative of respondent/OP while taking the policy. Nothing has been placed in this regard by the appellant/complainant before the Ld. District Forum as well as before this Commission. It is not denied by the appellant/OP that the terms and conditions of policy were not received by him along with letter dated 31.03.2009 of respondent/OP. The aforesaid letter has been reproduced in the impugned order. We also reiterate the said letter which is necessary for disposal of present appeal. The said letter reads as under:

                        “In case you are not agreeable to any of the provisions stated I the policy, then you have the option of returning the policy to us stating the reasons thereof within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the policy. The cancellation request should be submitted to your nearest Kotak Life Insurance Branch or sent directly to our Head Office. On receipt of your letter along with the original policy document we shall arrange to refund the premium paid by you after deducting the proportionate risk premium, medical charges and sincere stamp duty. A policy once returned shall not be revived, reinstated or restored at any point of time and a new proposal will have to be made for a new policy.”

 

12.            If the appellant/complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, he could have exercised his option in the free look period instead of blaming the appellant/OP.

13.            We find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, we dismiss the same.

                A copy of this order be sent to parties free of costs as well as to District Forum for necessary information.

                File be consigned to record room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

(Salma Noor)

Member