Punjab

Moga

CC/17/27

Sundeep Singh Gill - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra old life Insurance Company limited - Opp.Party(s)

Munish Majithia

02 Aug 2017

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

 

                                                                                      CC No.  27 of 2017

                                                                                      Instituted on: 02.03.2017

                                                                                      Decided on: 02.08.2017 

 

Sundeep Singh Gill, aged about 39 years son of Kulwant Singh Gill, resident of Preet Vihar, Near Focal Point, Bank Colony, G.T. Road, Moga.

                                                                                ……… Complainant

 

Versus

1.       Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited, Regn. No.107, Regd. Office at 4^th Floor, Vinay Bhavya Complex, 159A, C.S.T. Road, Kalina, Santacrue (East) Mumbai.

 

2.       Kotak Mahindra, 4^th Floor, G.K. Plaza, V-Mart, G.T. Road, Moga.

 

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member

 

Present:       Sh. Munish Majithia, Advocate Cl. for complainant.

                   Sh. Gurmeet Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate Cl. for opposite parties.

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

 

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited, Regn. No.107, Regd. Office at 4^th Floor, Vinay Bhavya Complex, 159A, C.S.T. Road, Kalina, Santacrue (East) Mumbai and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) directing them to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as per insurance policy no.03093252. Further opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and agony suffered by the complainant or any other relief which this Forum may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be granted.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the children of the complainant are studying in Sacret Heart School, Moga. One creating camp was organized by opposite parties, in which, Gurleenpreet Kaur, 6-A, Daughter of the complainant participated. After some time, the opposite parties informed that a prize and certificate is to be given to the complainant and the complainant should go to St. no.9, Hotel Jaiswal, Moga. On 05.11.2014, the complainant reached at Jaiswal Hotel, Moga. The team of Kotak Life Insurance, who represented the opposite parties consisting of Rattandeep, Raya, Raj and some other members were present. The complainant was out of work and the persons present there have assured that the complainant can be given a post and other facilities in case, he purchased one policy for a sum of Rs.50,000/-, as the complainant was out of work and was innocent and illiterate person and thus complainant came into the talks of the said persons. The complainant was forced to purchase the policy for Rs.50,000/-. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 05.11.2014. The said amount was collected by the complainant from his relatives. The complainant was assured that the complainant will be given a post in Moga office and also other facilities. But neither any post was given nor any facilities were provided to the complainant or his family members. A fraud has been committed by the opposite parties upon the complainant. A complaint was lodged with opposite parties vide complaint ID: KLI-160225-00024105. Due to the aforesaid illegal and unwarranted acts of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered huge mental tension and agony. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections that the present complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and abuse of process of this Forum. The complainant has failed to prove any cause of action against opposite parties and in the absence of same the present complaint is liable to be dismissed; that all allegations herein have been made against some Rattandeep, Raya, Raj etc, but the said people have not been made a party to the complaint. Hence the present complaint suffers from non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties; that the complainant had not obtained the policy through any of agents/employees of the answering opposite parties. For obtaining the policy in question, the complainant had availed the services of an independent Insurance Broker M/s India Infoline Insurance Brokers Ltd. The complainant has failed to make M/s India Infoline Insurance Brokers Ltd. as party in the complaint due to the reasons best know to her. Hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties. The complainant is alleging that he got various offers from some officials that if he purchases the insurance policy he will get post in the Moga office and other facilities. The opposite parties company would also like to highlight that declaration in the proposal form submitted by the complainant which clearly mentions the Section 41 of the Insurance Act, 1938 which clearly states that no rebate can be given to any proposer by the company; that since the present complaint involves allegations of fraud, forgery, cheating and miss-selling, hence the same cannot be adjudicated under summary proceedings and can only be adjudicated in a civil court after holding a proper trial and leading substantive evidence. The proceedings before this Forum are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The complainant has failed to demonstrate any deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite parties. In the present case, the opposite parties have strictly acted as per terms and conditions of the policy contract. The terms of the policy are in the nature of a contract and their interpretation has to be made in accordance with the strict construction of the contract. The Forum cannot pass any order in contravention to the terms and conditions of the policy contract; that the complainant has sought a relief from this Forum, which she is not entitled to get under the terms and conditions of the subject policy; that the complainant has sought relief on the basis of allegations which are not supported by any documentary evidence to substantiate the same.

                   Further opposite parties submitted brief facts of the case that the opposite party company had received a duly filled and signed application form requesting for the issuance of policy. In consonance with the provisions of Regulation 4 (1) & 6 (2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of policyholder's Interests) Regulations 2002, the company sends a copy of proposal form alongwith the policy document to the policyholder. The company had sent the policy document stating the policy terms and conditions alongwith with a copy of proposal form to the communication address of the complainant and the same were duly received on. The policyholder retained the policy documents and neither approached the company with any discrepancies regarding premium payment, premium allocation charges, benefits, surrender, foreclosure or any assured benefits under the policy terms and conditions nor did he approached the company for cancellation of the policy during the Free Look period thereby implying that he had agreed to all the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence the subject policy continued. The complainant also submitted a duly signed benefit illustration at the time of taking the policy from which, it is clear that he very well knew about the terms of the policy. The complainant has provided a declaration in the proposal form stating that he understands policy terms and conditions of the policy document. The complainant had also signed a declaration in the proposal form. As per Regulation 4 (1) of the IRDA Regulation a copy of the proposal form duly signed by the policy holder was sent to the policyholder and was duly received alongwith the policy document thereby giving an opportunity to the policyholder to understand the terms and conditions and approach the company if any discrepancy. The complainant retained the policy documents and did not raise any objection towards the policy. The complainant had not approached the opposite parties during the free look period with any of his grievance regarding the policy or its terms and conditions. Meaning thereby that the complainant agreed to the policy and its terms and conditions. The complainant had voluntarily opted for the frequency of premium payment as yearly with premium payment of 10 years and the policy term of 10 years as clearly specified under clause 3 of the proposal form. That as per the records of the company had received the only subscription premium under the said policy. Thereafter, the next renewal premium under the said policy was due on 7.11.2015. However, the company did not receive the due renewal premiums within the grace period, as a result of which the said policy had entered the Lapse mode w.e.f. 7.12.2015. In regard a lapse letter dated 8.12.2015 was also sent by the company, wherein he was informed that the said policy can be revived by paying all the outstanding premiums and charges on the same. However, as the requirements raised by the company in order to revive the said policy were not fulfilled by the complainant, hence the company was not able to revive the said policies. Furthermore, a Major Lapse intimation letter dated 07.03.2016 was also sent to complainant by the company, wherein he was informed that the revival period under the said policy would end on 7.5.2016 and if the said policy is not revived till the end of revival period, then he shall have to undergo major revival formalities as per the policy terms and conditions. Due to non revival of the said policy from Lapse mode, the same has been foreclose as per the policy terms and conditions. The complainant has submitted a complaint dated 24.02.2016 to opposite parties which was appropriately replied by opposite parties vide letter dated 09.03.2016. Moreover during  telephonic conversation the complainant had claimed to be in possession of evidence and proof in support of his complaint. Even after letter dated 23.03.2016 issued by opposite parties in this regard, the complainant was not able to furnish the evidence in support of his allegations. In parawise reply, all other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost has been made.

4.                In order to prove the case, complainant tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence. 

5.                On the other hand, opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Nirmal Gulhane, Chief Manager Legal, Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. Ex.OPs-1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OPs-2 to Ex.OPs-7 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

7.                The case of the complainant is that opposite parties organized a camp at Moga and on 05.11.2014, the complainant attended a camp at Jaiswal Hotel, Moga, where representatives of opposite parties namely Rattandeep, Raya, Raj and other member assured the complainant that if he purchased one policy for a sum of Rs.50,000/-, he can get a post in their Moga office and other facilities. As the complainant was out of work, he came into the talks of these persons and he forced to purchase a policy of Rs.50,000/-. He paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 05.11.2014  and it was assured by opposite parties that he will be given a post in the office of opposite parties and other facilities, but the opposite parties neither gave any post nor gave any facility to complainant or his family members as agreed. Opposite parties committed a fraud. The complainant lodged various complaints with opposite parties, but to no effect. The complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.50,000/- as paid by him to opposite parties. On the other hand, opposite parties submitted that the complainant purchased policy in question on his own free will after understanding all the terms and conditions of the policy. The policy in question issued on the basis of duly signed proposal form submitted by the complainant after understanding all the terms and conditions of the policy. The policy documents alongwith copy of proposal form duly signed by the complainant. The policy terms and condition, registration of policy, benefits etc. were duly sent to complainant on his address which is received by him. The complainant never make any objection regarding the terms and conditions of the policy. It is wrong that opposite parties ever promise to complainant to give a job in Moga office or to provide any other facility. Moreover, the complainant did not purchase the policy in question from opposite parties directly rather he purchased the policy in question from independent agent M/s India Infoline Insurance Brokers Ltd. The said Rattandeep, Raya, Raj etc, who allegedly promised the complainant for a job are not the employees of the opposite parties and they had no authority to give any assurance on behalf of opposite parties. The complainant has not made that M/s India Infoline Insurance Brokers Ltd and Rattandeep, Raya and Raj etc. as party to this complaint, who allegedly gave assurance for the job to him. The opposite parties never gave any assurance of that kind to complainant. Moreover, all the terms and conditions of the policy and documents were duly sent to complainant and there is 15 days free look period in case the complainant was not agreed with the terms and conditions of the policy, he can surrender the policy and in that case, he can claim the amount of premium, but the complainant did not raise any objection and not approached to opposite parties to surrender his policy within the free look period. The complainant paid only first premium on 5.11.2014 and as per terms and conditions of the policy he had to pay a renewal premium for annually for 10 years, but he did not pay any instalment of the premium after first premium and his next premium under the policy was due on 05.11.2015, but he did not pay the premium on time, as such his policy entered into lapse mode. The opposite parties sent reminders to complainant regarding the deposit of premium as well as regarding the lapse of the policy and informed him that he can revive his policy by paying outstanding premium. The complainant did not pay the premium even major lapse intimation letter was sent to him informing to revive the policy otherwise same will be foreclosed as per terms and conditions of the policy, but the complainant did not pay renewal premium, so policy of the complainant was foreclosed as per terms and conditions of the policy. Now, he cannot claim anything under the policy in question.

8.                We have thoroughly gone through the file, evidence and arguments lead by ld. counsel for the parties. The case of the complainant is that he purchased the policy in question from opposite parties on the allurement of representative of opposite parties that if he purchased the policy in question, he will be given a post at Moga office of the company and other facilities, but the opposite parties denied all the allegations of the complainant and submitted that complainant purchased the policy in question at his own free will and no promise was ever made by the opposite parties for giving any post in the office of company and other facilities to complainant. The complainant purchased the policy in question form M/s India Infoline Brokers Ltd. and not directly from the opposite parties.

9.                Now, it is admitted case of the complainant that opposite parties sent him the policy documents alongwith proposal form, terms and conditions and other benefits etc. The complainant himself produced these documents as Ex.C-2, which was received by him on 13.11.2014. In these documents, all the terms and conditions of the policy are clearly mentioned including free look period, annual premium, sum assured, policy term and premium payment term etc, but there is no assurance with regard to give any post in the company or any other facilities in lieu of the purchase of the policy as alleged. The case of the complainant is that at the time of purchase of policy, he was unemployed and on the assurance of opposite parties that he will be given a job, he purchased the policy in question. On the other hand, in the proposal form, which was duly filled and signed by the complainant, his annual income mentioned as Rs.3 lac and work mentioned as business as shopkeeper and designation mentioned as owner. So, the stand of complainant that he had no work at that time and on the allurement of agents of opposite parties that he will get a post in the office of opposite parties has no foots. The allegation of the complainant is that representative of the opposite parties namely Rattandeep Singh, Raya, Raj etc. allured him for the purchase of policy. On the other hand, opposite parties specifically submitted that there is no employee with them namely these persons. Moreover, the complainant purchased the policy in question from Independent agent M/s India Infoline Brokers Ltd, which is clear from the policy document and proposal form, but the complainant did not implead these persons as party to the present complaint to prove his allegation. As per terms and conditions of the policy, there was free look period of 15 days, if the complainant does not satisfied, he can return the policy in that period for getting the refund of premium amount, but the complainant did not opt to return the policy in this period. The complainant did not pay renewal premiums to the company and his policy entered into lapse mode and finally foreclosed as per terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant has failed to prove his allegation that on the allurement of agent of opposite parties that he will get a post in the office of opposite parties, he purchased the policy in question, rather he himself did not pay the premium of policy on time and his policy foreclosed by the company as per terms and conditions of the policy. Moreover, the complainant paid his first premium on 5.11.2014 and after that he did not pay any premium to the company. The cause of action to file the present complaint for the complainant arose in the year 2014. As per Consumer Protection Act, there is a limitation period of 2 years for filing any complaint from the date of cause of action, but the complainant filed the present complaint on 02.03.2017 i.e. after passing of morethan 2 years, so the present complaint is also time barred.

10.              From the above discussion, we found no merit in the present complaint and the same stands dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum

Dated: 02.08.2017

                                                (Bhupinder Kaur)                    (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                                        Member                                President