BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No. 321 of 2015
Date of Instt. 28.07.2015
Date of Decision: 24.05.2017
Om Parkash son of Sh. Ishar Dass resident of House No.35/6, New Amar Nagar, backside Bhagwati Mandir, Gulab Devi Road, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited Kotak Infiniti, 7th Floor Zone 4, Bldg No.21, Infinity Park Opp Western Express Highway Gen A.K. Vaidya Marg, Malad (E), Mumbai-400097, India.
2. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited near Bus Stand, Jalandhar.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),
Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. RK Bhagat, Adv counsel for complainant.
Sh. KS Minhas, Adv counsel for OP No.1 and 2.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is a retired teacher and is a law abiding citizen of India, having good reputation in the society and also belongs to a respectable family. The complainant has purchased a policy of the company of OPs bearing No.02097217 dated 25.08.2010 amounting to Rs.25,000/- from the OP No.2. That on 18.08.2011, the agent bearing code No.601208087 SCO 913, with client ID Number 54027321 taken the second installment of Rs.25,000/- from the complainant through cheque bearing machine No.598585 and issued a receipt dated 14.09.2011 by the OP. It is also pertinent to mention here that the complainant has also mentioned all the necessary particulars on the back side of the said cheque in question. However, the above said representative of the OP has accepted the said cheque of the complainant, but later on the next day, the above said representative of OP returned the said cheque to the complainant with the observations that the complainant has mentioned all the requisite particulars on the back side of the cheque. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has mentioned the particulars on the saying of representative of the OP only. Hence the representative had demanded another cheque from the complainant with the directions that the necessary particulars are not required to be mentioned on the backside of the said cheque. Under bonafide belief the assurance given by the representative of the OP, the complainant issued a fresh cheque bearing No.598586 of the said amount and handed over the same to him.
2. That thereafter the complainant presumed that the matter has been solved but after few days the complainant received an other policy bearing No.02580078 in his name which infact he has not opted or desired to be opted at any point of time. The complainant had never showed his willingness to obtain a new policy through the above said representative of the OP. The complainant visited the office of OP at Jalandhar time and again and requested the concerned officials to reconcile the matter once again. The officials working at Jalandhar office directed the complainant to deposit the said policy with them and they further directed the complainant to deposit the installment of his previous policy. The complainant was facing hardships due to non availability of funds but he has to pay an extra amount of Rs.540/- in addition to his premium. At the time of depositing the 3rd installment, the complainant requested the officials of the OP at Jalandhar to close his policy as he is no more interested in continuing the said policy. But the said officials have dilly delayed the matter on one pretext or the other but third time the officials have again directed the complainant to deposit the installments. The officials had said to the complainant that either to close policy, or to deposit Rs.20,000/- and after that the policies will be closed and the principal amount of Rs.70,000/- will be refunded with interest. The complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- in good faith and the officials again issued him a new policy of Rs.20,000/- bearing No.02580078.
3. That thereafter the complainant visited the officials working at Jalandhar office and requested them to cancel the above said policies but the officials have finally declined the request of the complainant. In this matter the complainant has suffered mental tension, physical tension, monetary loss, wastage of time, agony, harassment, frustration etc and even without his fault. Even a legal notice was also served to the OP but all in vain and it is established that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the OP and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be accepted and the OPs be directed to pay the principal amount to the tune of Rs.70,000/- alongwith damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum till the actual date of realization of the amount. Further the OP be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental tension, physical harassment and financial loss and litigation expenses from the OP.
4. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties but both the OPs despite service failed to appear and as such they were proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 08.09.2015.
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-36 and closed the evidence.
6. When the case was fixed for argument, the counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 filed an application for seeking permission to join the proceedings and accordingly, the said application was allowed by my Predecessor vide order dated 07.06.2016 and allowed to join the proceedings at this stage i.e. from the stage of argument.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective party and also gone through the case file very minutely.
8. Apart from oral argument, the learned counsel for the complainant as well as OP submitted their respective written argument.
9. After going through the pleadings and documents, we came to conclusion that the complainant obtained policy bearing No.02097217 dated 25.08.2010, after making a payment of premium of Rs.25,000/- from OP No.2. It is the case of the complainant that on 18.08.2011, agent of the OP took the second premium of Rs.25,000/- from the complainant vide cheque bearing No.598585 and accordingly issued a receipt No.71086086n and dated 14.09.2011. The complainant also mentioned all the necessary particulars on the reverse side of the said cheque but on the next day, the aforesaid representative of the OP returned the said cheque to the complainant on the pretext that the complainant has described the particulars on back side of the cheque and accordingly asked for issuing of second cheque and accordingly the complainant issued a fresh cheque bearing No.598586 on the same amount and handed over the same to the representative of the OP. Thereafter, the complainant received another policy bearing No.02580078 in his name. The complainant has never opted or desired to have another policy and accordingly the complainant approached OP No.2 time and again to reconcile the matter and the officials of the OP No.2 directed the complainant to deposit the policy and further to deposit installment of his previous policy. Complainant had to pay an extra amount of Rs.540/- in addition to his premium. At the time of depositing 3rd installment of premium, the complainant requested the officials of OP No.2 at Jalandhar to close his policy as he is no more interested in continuing the said policy but the officials of OP No.2 dilly delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. However, officials of OP No.2 again directed the complainant to deposit the installment of premium or to close the policy in that case. The principal amount of Rs.70,000/- will be refunded with interest. The complainant, therefore, deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- in good faith. However, the official of OP No.2 again issued him a new policy bearing No.02580078 with premium of Rs.20,000/-. Complainant again approached OP No.2 to cancel the aforesaid policies but the officials of the OP declined the request of the complainant. The complainant also served legal notice dated 11.08.2014 Ex.C-19 and its subsequent reminders which were duly served upon the OPs but inspite of that the OPs failed to make the payment of the said amount alongwith interest to the complainant and as such there is deficiency in service on the the part of the OPs.
10. To the contrary, the case set up by the complainant in its written argument is that the OP company had received two duly filled in and signed proposal forms from the complainant for the issuance of life insurance policy under “Kotak Smart Advantage” plan and “Kotak Endowment Plan Limited” alongwith duly filled and signed benefit illustration, on the basis of two policies i.e. Kotak Smart Advantage bearing No.02097217 dated 25.08.2010, proposal form dated 18.08.2010 with premium of Rs.25,000/-, terms of the policy was 15 years and premium payment term was also 15 years with sum assured Rs.2,50,000/- and second policy “Kotak Endowment Plan Limited” bearing No.02580078 dated 17.07.2012, proposal form dated 12.07.2014 with premium of Rs.19,943/-, policy term was 10 years and premium payment term was 5 years annual with sum assured Rs.89,000/- and present status of both the policies is foreclosed. Policy No.02097217 dated 25.08.2010 was dispatched to the complainant on 26.08.2010 through speed post No.EM1956560181N, second policy bearing No.02580078 dated 17.07.2012 was dispatched to the complainant on 18.07.2012 through speed post No.EM2106182971N. OPs further submitted that complainant paid renewal premium for the first two years for the policy No.02097217 and thereafter, the renewal premium due on 23.08.2012 for the 3rd year remained unpaid and the OP company did not receive the renewal premium within due date, as a result of which the said lapse w.e.f. 23.08.2012 as per clause-4 of the policy terms and conditions and the same was communicated to the policyholder vide letter dated 23.08.2012 Annexure R-3. Further foreclosure intimation letter dated 26.06.2014 Annexure R-4 was also sent by the company to the complainant apprising complainant that reviver period of the said policy was end on 22.08.2014 if the same was not revived then the same would be foreclosed. The complainant did not get the aforesaid policy revived, so, the same was foreclosed as per policy terms and conditions and the company apprised the complainant about the foreclosure of his policy vide letter dated 01.09.2014, wherein foreclosure refund cheque bearing No.601784 amounting to Rs.9,665.86/- dated 01.09.2014 has been paid to the policy holder and the same was got encashed by the complainant. Copy of the said cheque is Annexure R-5.
11. In regard to policy No.02580078, the policyholder had paid only first premium and thereafter, renewal premium due on 12.07.2013 remained unpaid. Complainant failed to pay the second premium before the due date. Resultantly, the said policy has entered into lapse mode w.e.f. 12.07.2013 as per clause-2 of the policy terms and conditions and the same was apprised to the complainant vide letter dated 12.07.2013 Annexure R-6. Complainant was also informed in that the said policy can be revived by paying outstanding all premium and charges but the complainant did not made any efforts to rectify the said policy. So, the same was foreclosed and this fact was apprised to the complainant vide letter dated 13.07.2015 Annexure R-7.
12. Further in regard to policy bearing No.02353232 issued to the complainant on 25.08.2011, was issued on the basis of proposal form filled in and signed by the complainant and after receipt of the premium of Rs.25,000/- vide cheque bearing No.598586. However, the complainant applied for free look cancellation of the said policy under the terms and conditions of that policy. The same was processed by the company and the premium amount paid by the complainant was refunded to the complainant vide cheque No.261044 amounting to Rs.24,950.76/- dated 24.09.2011 and the same was also got encashed by the complainant, copy of proposal form is Annexure R-8 and that of refund cheque is Annexure R-9. All the aforesaid policies were issued to the complainant on the basis of proposal form filled in and signed by the complainant. If the complainant had any grievances regarding the policy No.02580078, he could have approached the company within free look period as he opted to do so under policy No.02353232, copy of the policy documents of first two policies i.e. policy bearing No.02580078 and policy bearing No.02097217 are Annexure R-10 and R-11 respectively. Not only this, the complainant has also apart from proposal forms signed the declaration forms to the fact that he had understood the nature and contents of questions asked and replied submitted in the proposal form and further alleged that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.
13. We have considered all the facts as discussed above and find that the complainant himself not come in the Forum with clean hands because he has concealed the real facts from the Forum, factually he had himself filled the proposal form and signed thereon not so he also signed on the declaration form and then three different policies were issued to the complainant, out of 3 policies, in the last policy issued to the complainant, the amount of premium has been already refunded to the complainant as per version of the OP vide giving a reference of the cheque and even some amount of the second policy was also returned to the complainant vide cheque and the said cheque was also encashed. So far the concern of first policy relating to year 2010 in which the complainant has paid premium of 3 years and thereafter asked for cancellation of the policy but as per guide line of the IRDA, the free look period is 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy but the complainant has not applied for cancellation of the policy within a stipulated period and as such we find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and therefore the complaint of the complainant fails and the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
14. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
24.05.2017 Member President
