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

========

Complaint  Case  No : 326 of 2011

Date of Institution :  14.06.2011

Date of  Decision   :  23.11.2011

1]  Sh.Balbir Singh, Kothi No.692, Phase-2, Mohali.

2]  Gunjot Singh Grand s/o Balbir Singh, Kothi No.692, Phase-2, Mohali.

.…Complainants

V E R S U S

1]  Kotak Mohindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., SCO 141-142, 2nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, through its Manager/Incharge.

2]  Kotak Mohindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., SCO No.5, Top Floor, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh, through authorized signatory/Incharge

3]  Kotak Mohindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., Regd. Office, 9th Floor, Godrez Caliseum, Behind Everad Nagar, Sion East, Mumbai (400 022) through its Managing Director/CEO

4]  Indian Overseas Bank, SCO 23, Phase-1, Mohali, through its Chief Manager.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:  Sh.P.D. GOEL                  PRESIDENT

   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL     MEMBER

   DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA   MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.H.S.Parwana, Counsel for Complainants.

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OPs No.1 to 3.

                Sh.C.S.Pasricha, Counsel for OP No.4.

PER SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

         The complainant, who is 82 years old, on being allured by the representatives of OP Insurance Company, as alleged, made one time investment of Rs.50,000/- in the bonds of OP Insurance Company with guaranteed 12.50% return. He signed all the documents/forms as advised & put forth by the representative of OP Insurance Company.  They also got singed some documents/forms from complainant filling the particulars of his grand son Gunjot Singh as Insured Person for issuing an insurance policy in the name of minor.  However, when complainant received the insurance policy, he found that it was not an Investment Bond but an Insurance Policy for 20 years with yearly premium.  The matter was brought to the notice of OP Insurance Company, who assured to redressal the grievance, but did nothing positive. Even the policy document was returned to them with request to refund the amount, but they did not pay anything and kept delaying the matter on one pretext or the other.  More so, OP-4 debited Rs.50,000/- from his saving bank account on 16.3.2011 without his consent or confirmation for payment to Kotak Life Insurance Company.  Hence, alleging the above act of OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice causing mentally agony, harassment & monetary loss to the complainant, the present complaint has been filed.  

2]       OP-1 to 3 filed joint reply and admitted the issuance of policy in question. It is stated that the complainant after thoroughly understanding the features, terms & conditions of Kotak Super Advantage Plan agreed to purchase the said plan and in accordance with the information filled-in by the complainant in the proposal form, the OPs had issued him the policy, which was duly delivered to him along with its terms & conditions. It is also stated that the complainant had duly received the policy document but he has never approached the OP for cancellation under the Free Look Period of the policy, hence he is estopped by his own act & conduct. It is further stated that the complainant had provided ECS Mandate Form for payment of renewal premium thereby authorizing the OP Company to collect the renewal premiums on respective date of every year during the term of policy. Denying rest of the allegations of the complainant, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with exemplary cost.

3]       OP-4 (Indian Overseas Bank) in its reply have submitted that the bank had acted as per the banking procedure & practice and made the payment in accordance with Electronic Clearing System.  It is denied that it was obligatory for them to first confirm such transaction from the complainant before debiting his account for ECS. Rest of the allegations have been denied by OP-4 for want of knowledge and the same did not relate to them.   

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

6]       The case of the complainant is that he made one time investment of Rs.50,000/- in the bonds of OP Company.  The contention of the complainant is that when he received the insurance policy, the same was not found as per the assurance given to him by the OPs and therefore, he returned the Policy to OP Insurance Company with a request to refund the amount, but they did not pay anything.

7]       The complainant himself has admitted in Para No.7 of the complaint that he received the Insurance Policy bearing No.01926465 from the OPs on 23.3.2010.  He also admitted in Para No.11 of the complaint itself that Insurance Policy was returned to OP-2 under cover of letter dated 6.8.2010 with request to refund the amount. From this very fact, it is clear that the complainant has not returned the policy document to the Opposite Parties within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy, as stipulated in the policy under Free Look Period (Annexure C-6), which is reproduced as under:-

         “Free Look Period

In case you are not agreeable to any of the provisions stated in the policy, then you have the option of returning the policy to us stating the reasons thereof within 15 days from the date of 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 proportionate risk premium, medical charges and stamp duty.  A policy once returned shall not be revive, reinstated or restored at any point of time and a new proposal will have to be made for a new policy.”   

8]       Since, the complainant himself failed to return the policy document within above said free look period, therefore, he is estopped by his own act and conduct.

9]       As far as the terms & conditions of the insurance policy are concerned, the complainant has himself singed the proposal form (Annexure R-1).  Once the complainant is signatory to the proposal form (Annexure R-1) and has also received the insurance policy & other documents, he cannot, at this later stage, wriggle out from those terms & conditions, which he had already accepted    and now say that he was not aware about it.

10]      So far as OP No.4 (India Overseas Bank) is concerned, we do not find any deficiency on its part also.  The complainant himself has filled-in and singed the ECS Mandate Form (Annexure R-4) in favour of Kotak Life Insurance for deducting yearly premium against the policy in question from his account with Indian Overseas Bank, Mohali.  In our view, the OP-4 has performed their duty as per banking norms and procedure.

11]      In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency on the part of OPs.  The complaint is mertiless.  The same is accordingly dismissed.  Parties are left to bear their own costs.

12]     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.