Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/855/2015

Navrattan Singh Sidhu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance CO. ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

21 Jul 2016

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/855/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	22/12/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	21/07/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Navrattan Singh Sidhu S/o Sh. B.S. Sidhu R/o H.No.1114, Sector 69, Mohali.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

 

1.  Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO NO. 141-142, 2nd floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

 

2.  Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 9th floor, Godrej Coliseum, behind Everard Nagar, Sion (East) Mumbai 400022, through its Managing Director.

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:    DR.MANJIT SINGH            PRESIDENT

           MRS.SURJEET KAUR           MEMBER

SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA    MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties	:	Sh. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that allured with the assurances of the Opposite Parties the complainant purchased one policy from them Parties by paying Rs.2,00,000/- towards premium. The premium amount was debited from the account of the complainant on 07.03.2014.  It has been alleged that despite numerous visits and requests the Opposite Parties neither issued receipt of the premium nor the Policy. When on 10.06.2015 the Complainant approached Opposite Parties to enquire about the policy number and the policy bond, they intimated policy number as 03009395 to him, upon which the Complainant gave a written request for cancellation of the policy as he never received the same and also requested for refund of the amount. But the Opposite Parties did not do anything to redress the grievance of the complainant hence this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency on the part of the OPs.

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite  Parties, seeking their version of the case

3.

4.      The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.

 

7.     The case of the Complainant is that he paid a premium of Rs.2,00,000/- and processing charges of Rs.6,180/- towards insurance policy, but he did not receive the policy from the Opposite Party even after a lapse of one year. Hence, he wrote a letter to cancel the said policy and TO refund the premium and processing charges, along with interest. However, his request was not acceded to by the Opposite Parties on the ground that he had not availed the option of free look-in-period of 15 days for cancellation of the said policy.

 

8.     We have perused Annexure R-2, which is delivery proof, produced on record by the Opposite Parties. However, we are not impressed with the same, as neither it contains the address of the Complainant, nor the signatures of the Complainant/recipient. Furthermore, Annexure R-2 is not supported by any document from the Blue Dart Express Limited in proof of delivery of the policy envelope delivered to the Complainant or his representative. There is no proof of delivery as to on what address policy documents were delivered. It appears to be an invented document placed on record by the Opposite Parties just to cover their lapse to evade their liability. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that when the policy document was not received by the Complainant, the free look-in-period of 15 days will start from the date of his first request for cancellation of the policy i.e. 10.06.2015 (Annex.C-2). The said request of the complaint is definitely within the free look period and the Opposite Parties ought to consider the same and refund the premium to the Complainant, on the terms & conditions, applicable to the free look period. Hence, non-refund of the premium, along with processing charges by the Opposite Parties, despite specific request made by the Complainant, tantanmounts to deficiency in service and their indulgence in unfair trade practice.      

9.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed to:-

[a]  To refund Rs.2,06,180/- to the Complainant (minus) the mandatory deductions applicable to the free look period, along with int. @9% per annum from the date of deposit, till realization.

[b]  To make payment of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental and physical harassment.

[c]  To make payment of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

 

10.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from the date of receipt, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [b] above, shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.7,000/-.  

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

Announced

21^st July, 2016                                            Sd/-          

(DR.MANJIT SINGH)

PRESIDENT

                                                    Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

     Sd/-

                                (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                   

                                                                             MEMBER