DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:181 of 2011] Date of Institution :25.04.2011 Date of Decision : 30.03.2012 -------------------------------------- [1] Sh. Tarlochan Singh son of Late Sh. Prabh Dayal Singh, Aged 66 years; [2] Smt. Ravinder Kaur wife of Sh. Tarlochan Singh, Aged 62 years both resident of House No.3310, Sector 35-D, U.T., Chandigarh. ….Complainants. (VERSUS) [1] Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited, SCO No.141-142, 2nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Regional Head/Branch Manager. [2] Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited, Central Processing Centre, 8th Floor, Godrej Coliseum, Behind Everard Nagar, Sion (East), Mumbai through its Chief Operating Officer. [3] Sh. Jagmeet Singh, Agent and Representative, Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited C/o Guru Nanak Investment, Cabin No.8 & 9, SCO No.371-373, 4th Floor, Sector 34, Chandigarh – 160034. IInd Address:- Sh. Jagmeet Singh, Agent and Representative, Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited resident of House No.3154, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Ajay Sood, Advocate, Complainant in person. Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2. OP No.3 already exparte. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT [1] Sh. Tarlochan Singh and his wife Smt. Ravinder Kaur have filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed:- i) To refund the premium amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest @18% per annum from the date of payment till its payment; ii) To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony; iii) To pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation. [2] The facts necessary to appreciate the points involved in the present complaint are as under: - It is averred that OP No.3 persuaded the complainants to encash their investments already made with the OPs and to re-invest the same in the mutual funds. Accordingly, the complainants handed over the requisite documents to OP No.3 in order to liquidate the said investments and re-invested the same in other companies. The complainants also signed some documents alleged to be the proposal forms of mutual funds of OPs No.1 and 2 and other company namely Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited. It was assured by OP No.3 that the complainants could withdraw the said amount with interest after three years. In the first week of July 2010, the complainants received some documents from OPs No.1 and 2. They also intimated about receiving of these documents to OP No.3. However, when the complainant went through these documents, it transpired that the same did not relate to Mutual fund rather these were Life Insurance Polices of OPs No.1 and 2. The complainants also informed OP No.3 that being of old age, they were not be able to pay the installments for long period. It is pleaded that OP No.3 took back the said documents with the assurance that the same would be corrected accordingly. However, on 23.08.2010, the said documents were returned to the complainants without any changes/rectification. On minutely going through the documents supplied to them, the complainants were shocked to see that two insurance policies of OPs No.1 and 2 bearing Policies Nos.02033100 and 02029465 were issued by OPs No.1 and 2 for a period of 20 years. The annual premium of these policies was Rs.1 Lac each, totaling Rs.2,00,000/-. As the terms and conditions of the said policies were not acceptable to them, the complainants lodged their protest with OPs No.1 and 2 and requested them to cancel the said policies with immediate effect vide letter dated 27.08.2010 i.e. within 4/5 days from the date of receipt of the policies. The complainants also served a legal notice dated 17.03.2011 upon the OPs but to no effect. According to the complainants, non-refund of the amount, despite the request for cancellation of the policies within the freelook period, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. So, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant seeking the reliefs mentioned above. [3] Notices were sent to the OPs. OPs No.1 and 2 were duly served on whose behalf Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate appeared. Time was granted to OPs No.1 and 2 to file their written statement along with the evidence. Despite several opportunities, OPs No.1 and 2 failed to file any written statement or evidence by way of affidavit. Therefore, their defence was struck off by the Forum vide order dated 09.03.2012. Initially, Sh. Nitin Sharma, Advocate had appeared on behalf of OP No.3 but subsequently, none appeared on its behalf, hence, OP No.3 was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.09.2011. [4] We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. [5] In the absence of any reply from the side of OPs, the averments made by the complainant in his complaint have gone un-rebutted and unchallenged. Admittedly, two policies bearing Nos. Policies Nos.02033100 and 02029465 (Annexures C-5 and C-6) dated 29.06.2010 were issued to the complainants by the OPs, which they received on 23.08.2010. Admittedly also, the OPs had charged a sum of Rs.2 Lac as premium for the said policies. The case of the complainants is that as the terms and conditions of the said policies were not acceptable to them, they requested the OPs for cancellation of the same within the free-look period. Annexure C-8 is letter dated 25.08.2010 whereby the complainants requested the OPs for cancellation of Policies Nos.02033100 and 02029465 (Annexures C-5 and C-6). This letter also bears the seal of OPs, which duly proves that this letter was received by the OPs on 27.08.2010 i.e. within the free-look period of 15 days. Furthermore, the averments made in the complainant are fully supported by the joint affidavit of the complainants tendered in evidence. In these circumstances, non refund of the premium amount charged from the complainants despite the fact that the request for cancellation of the policies in question was received within the free-look period, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Therefore, the OPs are liable to refund the amount of premium to the complainant. [6] In view of the foregoing discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the OPs are, jointly & severally, directed to:- i) refund a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant being the amount of premium paid by them; (ii) Pay to Complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; (iii) Pay Rs.7,000/- as litigation costs. [7] The above said order shall be complied with within 45 days of its receipt; thereafter, the opposite parties shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rs.2,00,000 + Rs.50,000), till actual payment, besides Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. [8] Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 30th March, 2012. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II C.C.No.181 of 2011 Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 19.03.2012. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 30.03.2012 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
