| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA RBT/Complaint No.260 of 2018 Date of institution: 24.04.2018 Date of Decision:19.05.2022 Vipul Jindal son of Sh. Shiv Shankar Jindal, resident of House No.1017/2, Tagore Nagar, Near College Road, Ludhiana. ….Complainant Versus Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance, Mall Road, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager ……..Opposite Party Complaint under Consumer Protection Act. Quorum: Shri Ranjit Singh, President. Mrs. Ranvir Kaur, Member Present: Sh.A.B. Sharma, Advocate, for complainant Sh. P.S.Gumber, Advocate, for OPs Order dictated by Sh. Ranjit Singh, President, Order The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, received by way of transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana, by the complainant against the Opposite Party on the ground that the complainant had obtained one Kotak Assured Savings Plan having policies No.02868248 dated 29.1.2014, policy No.02875470 dated 10.2.2014 and policy No.03006164 dated 15.3.2014 under client ID 56765533 from the opposite party. The policy term was of 15 years and the premium payment time was of 10 years. The premium for the policy No.02868248 & 02875470 was Rs.97,000/- excluding taxes and premium for policy No.03006164 was Rs.1,50,000/-. The complainant had successfully deposited the first two policy years premium but lateron the complainant was not in a position to further continue the above said policies. When the policy was obtained by the complainant from the opposite party then it was clearly told to him that the complainant can get his money back whenever he wants to redeem the amount. The agent of the opposite party had represented that the complainant is not bound in any manner to continue the above said policy for 15 years. But now when the complainant approached the opposite party then the opposite party refused to return the premium amount deposited with them. It is further alleged that the complainant had earlier also requested the opposite party to return the amount of the premium deposited with the opposite party and also sent a written letter on 28.7.2017 to the opposite party but the opposite party failed to return the amount. The complainant had also sent a legal notices dated 16.9.2017 to the opposite parties to refund the amount of the policies but despite the legal notices, failed to refund the amount. Infact on 28.9.2017, the opposite party sent the reply to the legal notice in which they flatly refused to pay any such amount. The opposite party has wrongly forfeited the entire amount deposited by the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:- - To pay an amount of Rs.6,88,000/- as premium paid by the complainant regarding policies.
- To pay a compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental suffering harassment and torture.
- To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
- Any other, additional or alternative relief as this Hon’ble Forum deems fit be also awarded to the complainant.
- In reply, the OP has taken various objections; that the present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and abuse of the process of this Hon’ble Commission; that the complainant had purchased one insurance policy in his own name; that the complainant has failed to demonstrate any deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP; that the complainant is not stopped from raising any grievance or issue relating to the policy or their terms and conditions; that the complainant is an educated person and after understanding the terms and conditions of the policy, he has willingly filled and signed the proposal form and the benefit illustration wherein he had agreed to the benefits, charges, terms and conditions and risk factor of the proposed plan; that the complainant has sought a relief from this Hon’ble Court, which he is not entitled to get under the terms and conditions of the subject policy and as such no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party had been demonstrated by the complainant. On merits, it is stated that complainant has admitted that he has failed to pay third premium due to his own financial problem. As per the policy contract, surrender value only accrues after payment of three full years premium. Since the complainant only paid the first two years premium and did not pay the third premium, therefore, no surrender value accrued and the policy got foreclosed without any benefits. As per records of the company no such letter dated 28.7.2017 was received by the OP. It is further stated that the company had sent the policy document stating the policy terms and conditions along with a copy of proposal form to the communication address of the complainant and the same is not in dispute. The policy holder retained the policy documents and neither approached the company with any discrepancies regarding premium payment, premium allocation charges, benefits, surrender and foreclosure or any assured benefits under the policy terms and condition, nor did he approach 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 policies continued. It is strange to note that a person who has agreed to obtain an insurance policy, obtains it without even reading and understanding its terms and conditions and consecutively fails to read and understand the same even after receiving the policy documents from the company.
- In support of his evidence, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered certain documents. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has also tendered various documents in the shape of evidence.
- We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully and minutely.
- From the perusal of the record of the file, it reveals that the complainant in the present case, the complainant was given an opportunity to cancel the policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy document. In case, he was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, he could have availed the option of free look period. But in the case in hand, the complainant has failed to avail this option. Even, he wrote a letter to the OP after passing about three years.
- In accordance to clause 6(2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of policy holder’s interests) Regulations, 2002 every policy document sent by it is accompanied by the forwarding letter, which clearly mentioned that in case policy holder is not satisfied with the features or the terms and condition of the policy he can withdraw/return the policy within 15 days i.e. under the Free look period Provision. The learned counsel for the OP in support of his version, placed on record the judgment of case titled United Insurance Company Limited Vs Harchand Rai Chand Rai Chandanlal I (2003) CPJ 393 and Vikram Greentech (1) and Anr. Vs New India Assurance Company Limited, II (2009) CPJ 34, of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, held that an insurance policy is to be construed strictly as per the terms and conditions of the policy document which is a binding contract between the parties and nothing can be added and subtracted by giving a different meaning to the words mentioned therein.
So, in the absence of any clear, cogent and convincing averments in the complaint, I feel, that the complainant is not entitled to any relief. As such, we do not find any merit in the present complaint, the same is accordingly, dismissed. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the record room. Announced May 19, 2022 (Ranjit Singh) President (Ranvir Kaur) CC No.260 of 2018 Sh. P.S. Gumber, Adv. For OP Arguments completed. Vide our separate detailed order of today, the complaint stands dismissed. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the record room. May,19 2022 (Ranjit Singh) (Ranvir Kaur) | |
