DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No : 43 OF 2011 Date of Institution : 25.01.2011 Date of Decision : 17.11.2011 Neena Verma w/o Sh. Yashpal Verma, R/o H.No.937, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh. ---Complainant V E R S U S1] Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., Kotak Towers, 5th Floor, Zone-II, Building No.21, Infinity Park, Western Express Highway, Goregaon Mulund Link Road, Malad East, Mumbai. 2] Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., SCO No. 141-142, 2nd Floor, Sector 9, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties BEFORE: SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA PRESIDING MEMBER SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Rahul Chhatwal, Advocate for the Complainant. Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the OPs. PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER 1] Briefly stated, the Complainant had purchased one insurance policy from the OPs. She had paid Rs.1.00 lac in lump to the OPs on 10.10.2009. The premium of the policy was Rs.1,00,000/-. As per the assurance given by the Agents of the OPs, the policy was to commence from 01.10.09. Rs.1.00 lacs was a one time payment only. The policy was to mature after a period of three years. The Complainant has stated that she was assured that after a period of three years, she would not only be paid back the premium amount, but other benefits including interest would also accrue to her. The Complainant received a letter dated 28.10.09 from the OPs, confirming receipt of premium payment. Thereafter, the Complainant did not receive the policy documents, despite various correspondence with the OPs. Much later, vide letter dated 26.08.10, addressed to the husband of the Complainant, the OPs admitted their lapse for non-despatch of policy and assured that a re-print of the policy would be sent to the Complainant in due course. On 27.10.10, the husband of the Complainant received another e-mail from the OPs, confirming that duplicate policy would be depatched to her shortly. The Complainant was, then, called to the office of OP No.2 on 15.11.10, where she was asked to collect the duplicate policy. While receiving the documents, the husband of the Complainant wrote on the forwarding letter as under: - “I have not received the original policy documents, received duplicate policy on 15.11.2010”. On perusing the duplicate policy, the Complainant was shocked that the term period of the policy was 10 years and the premium was payable annually. Not satisfied with the policy, the Complainant despatched a letter dated 18.11.10 to the OPs (within free look period), making a request for cancellation of the said policy. As no response was received from the OPs, the Complainant again requested them vide letter dated 08.12.2010 to refund the amount paid, as she was not interested in the policies. As the amount has not yet been refunded, the Complainant has filed the instant complaint, requesting to refund the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, along with interest and compensation. 2] After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs. OP Nos.1 & 2 in their joint written statement have taken the preliminary objection that the Complainant has duly received the policy, but, she has never approached them for cancellation under the ‘Free Look’ provision enshrined in the policy document. Also the allegations pertaining to premium are not substantiated by documents available on record. The Complainant had herself filled and signed the proposal form and chosen the policy term and premium payment term. On merits, the OPs have admitted the purchase of insurance policy by the Complainant and receipt of premium of the first year. However, they have denied the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as one time payment, as well as the averments stating that the policy was for a period of 03 years only. They have also denied the eligibility of the Complainant for refund of Rs.1,00,000/- along with other benefits. OPs have submitted further that the Complainant had purchased the policy in question after understanding the features and terms & conditions of the policy. The OPs have, thus, provided details of the proposal being Form No. 1735698, dated 30.09.2009. The OPs have admitted that the Complainant was explained that there will be a projected increase in the value of investment over the complete period of policy, subject to terms and conditions. The OPs have also stated that the policy was despatched to the Complainant by Bluedart courier on 20.10.2009 (Policy No.1735698). The husband of the Complainant had also provided the OPs with duly filled standing instruction dated 30.09.2009 for the policy, authorizing his banker namely Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited to debit his account during the term of the policy and remit the same to the OPs. Confirmatory letter with regard to the commencement date of the policy and details of annual premium was also sent to the Complainant, stating that the premium would be collected from the account of the Complainant on the “Annual Anniversary”. The OPs have thus, contended that the averments with respect to the non-receipt of policy documents are false, baseless and concocted. The OPs have further stated that as per the IRDA (Protection of Policyholders Interests) Regulations, 2002, the Complainant was entitled to seek cancellation of the policy within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy, in case of her disagreement with any of the terms & conditions of the policy. However, the Complainant did not exercise this right. It is only in the month of August, 2010, when she first communicated her requirement for re-print of the policy document, the request for which was complied with by the OPs. OPs have, thus, denied admittance of any form of lapse for non-receipt of the policy. As per their averments, the story made up by the Complainant is concocted to gain unlawfully at the cost of the OPs. The OPs have already rejected the free look cancellation request of the Complainant, through e-mail dated 13.12.2010. Hence, praying that the Complainant is not entitled to any relief, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 4] We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5] The proposal form duly sent to the Complainant shows that the premiums of the policy was payable ‘annually’ and the term of the policy was 10 years. The annual premium was Rs.1,00,000/-. The Complainant has herself attached these documents, along with the complaint. Hence, she cannot now state that she was not aware of these terms. However, the Complainant has also stated that the policy was not sent to her by the OPs and despite repeated requests by her, duplicate policy was issued to her only on 15.11.2010. The OPs have denied this allegation of the Complainant by saying that the policy was delivered to her, well in time by Bluedart Courier. But the Complainant had failed to exercise the option of recall/ cancellation of the policy within the ‘free look period’ of 15 days of delivery, as per the IRDA Guidelines. This averment of the OPs has, however, not been substantiated by any proof to show the delivery of the policy to the Complainant. Hence, even though the policy issued is correct, as per the proposal form, but there is no documentary proof on record to show that the policy was actually delivered to the Complainant. 6] As per the IRDA Guidelines, the free look period would commence only from the date the policy was actually placed in the hands of the Complainant. This date, as per the Complainant, is 15.11.2010. The ‘free look period’ would start only on delivery of policy to the Applicant. The Complainant has made a request for cancellation of policy on 18.11.2010. Apparently, this request is well within the ‘free look period’ and hence, should not have been denied by the OPs, as they have not been able to substantiate by documentary evidence the delivery of the policy to the Complainant, before this date. 7] In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed. OPs are directed to refund Rs.1,00,000/- to the Complainant. This amount be paid along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of deposit, till the date of actual payment. The OPs will also pay Rs.7,000/- towards cost of litigation to the Complainant. 8] The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, they would be liable to pay interest on the aforesaid amount @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order, till the date of actual payment, besides paying Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation. 9] Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 17.11.2011 Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER
| | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER | , | |
