DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

CC/286/2015

Sh. Devi Lal Joshi

S/o Mal Chand Joshi

Punsisar, Churu, Rajasthan – 331302

974/ 1 Lower Ground Floor, Dakha Plaza,

Main Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh,

Delhi – 110005, Near Federal Bank

No. XII, 5879, 19C-20A,

UA, Bunglow Road, Jawahar Nagar,

Kamla Nagar, Delhi – 110007

49, Rani Jhansi Road,

Jhandewalan, New Delhi - 110055

…..OPPOSITE PARTIES

Ms. Manju Bala Sharma, Member

Dr. R.C. Meena, Member

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. (in short OP 1).It is pleaded that

agents of OPs issued to him a Policy bearing No. 02539382 namely Kotak Assured

Income Plan (UIN – 107N069V02)for a sum of Rs. 70,000/-which was sent by

OPs at the address B-1030, Ground Floor, Shastri Nagar, 030, Ground Floor,

Shastri Nagar, Delhi - 110 052where complainant did not reside.The OPs allegedly issued said policy with malafide intention which caused him loss of Rs. 70,000/-.He prays that OP be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 70,000/- Rs. 3,00,000/-for causing him mental pain and agony and Rs. 30,000/- towards litigation charges.

It is further pleaded that complainant failed to pay renewal premiums on the due date under the policies bearing no. 02839382 and 02673929 and allowed the same to lapse despite the renewal premium notices sent to him on 11.01.2014 and 09.11.2014.

Further it is stated that complainant was informed about lapse of the policies vide letters 31.01.2014 & 10.01.2015 wherein the complainant was informed that

the policies could be revived by paying the renewal premiums which were due

within two years from the date of first unpaid premiums.

Further it is stated that complainant had raised concerns vide letter dated 07.05.14 & 10.07.2014 and the same were duly replied by OP vide letters dated 20.05.2014 & 11.07.2014.

It is submitted that OPs acted after receipt of concerns of the complainant and same were duly resolved by offering cancellation of the policy but the same was not availed by the complainant who did not submit documents along with request for cancellation.

It is stated that the policy documents were sent to the complainant at the address given by him in the proposal form.

4. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., (OP 2) submitted that complainant has a savings account bearing no. 1511268576 with it.He approached OP 2 stating that he wanted to avail two products of OP 1.OP 2 acted only as a corporate agent of OP 1.Further it is stated the complainant read the brochure and other material containing the product features.He filled proposal form and that the contents of the proposal form were duly explained to him and he duly understood the same.

It is further stated that the duly filled proposal form and supporting documents of the complainant were submitted to OP 2 who forwarded the same to OP 1.

It is further stated that complainant paid first premium of Rs. 50,000/- for policy no. 02839382 and first premium of Rs. 20103 towards policy no. 2673929 through

It is stated that OP 3 delivered the envelope at the address furnished by OP 1 and OP 2.

We have heard complainant in person, Shri Advaid Gautam Singh Counsel for OP 2 and Shri Farhad Malik Counsel for OP 3.

7. Complainant submitted that he never applied for any policy to OP 1 or OP 2 and that OP 1 and OP 2 have fraudulently issued policy no. 02539382 and 2673929 and that a amount of Rs. 70000/- has been fraudulently withdrawn from his account.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., (OP 2) Bank has pleaded that complainant has a savings bank account with it and he had approached OP 2 bank for availing two products of OP 1.It is also stated that complainant filled up the proposal form and that contents of the proposal form and the documents were explained to him and he

understood the same and after understandingproposal form along with supporting

documents complainant submitted the same to OP 2 who forwarded the same to

OP 1. It is also stated that first premiums for Policy no. 02539382 & 02673929

were paid through cheques.

Copies of the proposal forms of the two policies bearing numbers no. 2673929 & 02839382 are placed on record and the same were shown to the complainant today while hearing arguments.He did not dispute the same.

We have compared his signatures on the proposal form and on the complaint and affidavit filed before us.The signatures are similar.He did not dispute his signatures on proposal form before us.In both the proposal forms the address of the complainant is mentioned as Devi LalJoshi,B-1030, Ground Floor, Shastri Nagar,Delhi - 110 052 near Jain Mandir.This is the address on which the policy documents/letters were sent by OP 1 and OP 2 to the complainant.This was the address on which OP 3 had delivered the policy documents to the complainant on behalf of OP 1 and OP 2.

Complainant argued that he did not reside on the said address where the policy documents were sent to him in 2014 and 2015.

During the course of arguments the complainant showed to us the policy documents available with him.We asked him as to how he received the same if he was not residing at address : B 1030, Ground Floor, Shastri Nagar,Delhi - 110 052 near Jain Mandir where these document were sent by OP.

Complainant stated that he used to live at that address long ago and that he knows the person who is living there and therefore that person informed him that

some documents have been received on the said address in the name of the

complainant and that said documents were handed over to him by that person.Since the proposal form, copy of which is on the record, is signed by the complainant and the address given in the proposal form is B - 1030, Ground Floor, Shastri Nagar, Delhi - 110 052 near Jain Mandir where policy, documents / letters

were sent, Complainant cannot say that he had no concern with the said address and that the policy documents/ letters were sent by OP 1 and OP 2 at a wrong address.

Letter dated 01/12/2015 sent by OP to the complainant is Annexure R – 7.

Copy of bank statement of account no. 1511268576 of the complainant is also placed on record which bears the address of the complainant as B 1030, Ground Floor, Shastri Nagar,Delhi - 110 052.

anything on record to indicate that he approached OP for cancellation of policies

within 15 days of the receipt of the policy documents.Learned counsel for OP has relied on judgment of the National Commission in Shrikant Murlidhar Apte Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Revision Petition No. 634 of 2012 dated

03.05.2013 in support of its contention that once 15 days cooling off period is over, policy becomes binding on both parties.It is submitted that since complainant did not raise any objection during the Freelook Period of 15 days from the date of receipt of policy documents, it means that he agreed to the terms and conditions of the policies.

documents vide its letter dated 20/05/2014 but complainant did not approach OP for cancellation of the policy along with requisite documents.

keep the same alive.He has not clarified as to why he did not approach the OP for cancellation of the policy within free look period of 15 days.He has further not clarified as to why he did not respond to letters of OPs dated 20/05/2014 and 11/07/2014.

Copy of letter dated 20/05/2014 is placed on record by OP as Annexure R – 8 vide which complainant was requested to submit stated documents to process his request for the cancellation with refund of premium.

OP has submitted that despite proposal for settlement sent to him complainant did not turn up for cancellation.

Complainant in his affidavit by way of evidence has not placed any document on record to indicate that he approached OP seeking cancellation of the policy and refund of the premiums persuant to communication of OP dated 20/05/2014 nor he has disputed that he did not receive the said communication of OP dated 20/05/2014.Having failed to approach OP seeking cancellation of policy within

free look period of 15 days or on receipt of letter of OP dated 20.05.2014 and further having failed to pay renewal premiums under the subject policy to keep the

same alive and further having enjoyed the benefit of the policy for longcomplainant cannot be allowed to claim refund.

At page no. 8 of the reply of OP 1 Insurance Company it is submitted that “

‘‘on receipt of all the premiums for a period of at least three consecutive years, the policy shall acquire a surrender value with effect from the date of third policy anniversary…’’

Announced this 16^th day of  October  2019.