THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR

Consumer Complaint No. 86 of 2014

Date of Institution : 18.2.2014

Date of Decision : 01.07.2015

Mrs.Sarita Alhawat W/o Sh. Anil Kumar R/o H.No. 84GF, B-Block, Ranjit Avenue,Amritsar

...Complainant

Vs.

Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Company Limited through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principal Officer having one of its office at Ranjit Avenue, B-Block, Amritsar service through its branch manager

....Opp.party

Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present : For the complainant : Sh. Deepinder Singh,Advocate

For the opposite party : Sh. S.M. Vermani,Advocate

Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &

Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member

Order dictated by :-

Bhupinder Singh, President

1 Present complaint has been filed by Sarita Ahlawat under the provisions of the

-2-

Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she was approached by the agent of the opposite party who allured the complainant to invest in the policies of the opposite parties and on the allurement of the opposite party complainant had taken two insurance policies from the opposite party bearing policy No. 02698032 and 02692325 on payment of premiums of Rs. 3 lacs and Rs. 1,16,000/- . Complainant has alleged that she received the copies of the policy documents from the opposite party on 2.12.2013. As she was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy and within free look period of 15 days, she wrote to the opposite party on 12.12.2013 for the refund of the invested amount i.e. Rs. 3 lacs and Rs. 1,16,000/- respectively. Thereafter complainant approached the opposite party several times to get his invested amount back but to no avail. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite pary to refund the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 1,16,000/- alongwith interest @ 12%. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.

2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant for obtaining the policies in question had availed the services of Independent Insurance Broker M/s. Secure Line Insurance Services Ltd Batala. It was submitted that the opposite party does not enjoy and administrative control over the Insurance Brokers. In order to obtain the policies in question, complainant filled in and signed the proposal forms as well as

-3-

declarations in which almost all the terms and conditions were mentioned. On the basis of proposal forms , opposite party issued policy bearing No. 02692325 on 28.2.2013 which was sent to the complainant through Bluedart Courier, No. 43510546844 and the same was received by Sandeep on behalf of the complainant on 7.3.2013. Policy documents bearing No. 02698032 was issued on 31.3.2013 which was sent to the complainant through Bluedart Courier, No. 43525754241 on 10.4.2013 which could not be delivered as the consignee was out of station on 23.4.2013. Again the policy documents were sent to the complainant on 15.10.2013 via Bluedart Courier No. 44091886786 and the same was received by one Sandeep on behalf of the complainant on 17.10.2013. It was submitted that the complainant retained the policy documents and did not approach the company with any discrepancies for cancellation of the policy during free look period of 15 days as complainant herself has signed benefit illustration after fully understanding the terms and conditions of the policy . It was submitted that complainant received the policies on 2.2.2013 and she approached for refund on 12.12.2013 i.e. beyond free look period of 15 days, as such she is not entitled to get any amount of premium back. It was submitted that complainant herself has opted the mode of payment as annual for the term of 10 years with premium paying term 5 years for policy No. 02698032 and full paying term for the policy No. 02692325. Complainant was also informed for next renewal due date 28.2.2014 for policy No. 02698032 and for

-4-

policy No. 02692325 the next renewal due date of which was 25.2.2014. But the complainant did not care to renew the policies, as such the policies got lapsed . While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3. Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of letter dated 12.12.2013 Ex.C-2, first premium receipt Ex.C-3, copy of policy documents Ex.C-4, letter dated 12.12.2013 Ex.C-5, first premium receipt Ex.C-6, policy documents Ex.C-7, acknowledgement receipt Ex.C-8.

4. Opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh. Shakil Ahmad Sr.Manager Legal Ex.OP1, proposal form Ex.OP2, despatch proof Ex.OP3, benefit illustration Ex,.OP4, policy terms and conditions Ex.OP5, renewal premium payment letter dated 30.1.2014 Ex.OP6, letter dated 28.2.2014 Ex.OP7.

5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for both the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.

6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties , it is clear that complainant had taken two insurance policies from the opposite party bearing policy No. 02698032 and 02692325 on payment of premiums of Rs. 3 lacs and Rs. 1,16,000/- . The complainant alleges

-5-

that she received the copy of the policies documents from the opposite party on 2.12.2013. She was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy and within free look period of 15 days. She wrote to the opposite party on 12.12.2013 Ex.C-2 for the refund of the amount of premiums i.e. Rs. 3 lacs and Rs. 1,16,000/- respectively. The said letter was acknowledged by the opposite party. The complainant also told the opposite party several times to get his money back. But the opposite party did not refund the invested amount of the complainant till date. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on he part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the complainant for obtaining the policies in question had availed the services of Independent Insurance Broker M/s. Secure Line Insurance Services Ltd Batala. The opposite party does not enjoy and administrative control over the Insurance Brokers. In order to obtain the policies in question, complainant filled in and signed the proposal forms as well as declarations in which almost all the terms and conditions were mentioned. Policy No. 02698032 was for a period of 5 years and the policy No. 02692325 was for a period of 10 years. The premium for policy No. 02692325, was Rs. 1,14,262/-, whereas for policy No. 02698032, premium was Rs. 3 lacs. The premium payment frequency was yearly. On the basis of proposal forms , opposite party issued policy bearing No. 02692325 on 28.2.2013 which was sent to the complainant through

-6-

Bluedart Courier No. 43510546844 and the same was received by Sandeep on behalf of the complainant on 7.3.2012, whereas policy documents bearing No. 02698032 was issued on 31.3.2013 which was sent to the complainant through Bluedart Courier No. 43525754241 on 10.4.2013 which could not be delivered as the consignee was out of station on 23.4.2013. Again the policy documents were sent to the complainant on 15.10.2013 via Bluedart Courier No. 44091886786 and the same was received by one Sandeep on behalf of the complainant on 17.10.2013. In this regard the opposite party produced the despatch proof Ex.OP3. The complainant has admitted that she received the policy documents but wrongly stated that he received the policy documents on 2.12.2013 ,whereas she received the policy documents on 7.3.2-13 and 17.10.2013 respectively. If the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, she could surrender the policies and apply for cancellation of the policies and refund of the premium amount within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents. But the complainant applied for refund of the premium amount to the opposite party vide letter dated 12.12.2013 Ex.C-2 and C-5 both dated 12.12.2013 i.e. after a lapse of a period of more than 9 months and two months respectively
Opposite party was,therefore, justified in not accepting the request of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

-7-

8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that in order to obtain the policies in question, the complainant filled in and signed the proposal forms as well as declarations on 25.2.2013 and 28.2.2013 respectively in which almost all the terms and conditions of the policies have been mentioned. On the basis of the proposal form, opposite party issued policies bearing No. 02692325 and No. 02698032 . Policy bearing No. 02692325 was issued to the complainant on 28.2.2013 which was despatched to the complainant on 5.3.2013 through Bluedart Courier, No. 43510546844 Ex.OP3 which was received by Sandeep on behalf of the complainant on 7.3.2013, whereas policy bearing No.02698032 was issued to the complainant on 31.3.2013 and the policy was despatched to the complainant on 10.4.2013 through bluedart courier No. 43525754241 but the same could not be delivered to the complainant as the consignee was out of station on 23.4.2013 and the policy documents were received back by the opposite party. The policy documents were again redespatched to the complainant on 15.10.2013 vide Bluedart Courier No. 44091886786 Ex.OP3 which was received by Sandeep on behalf of the complainant on 17.10.2013. The complainant in his complaint has admitted that she received the policy documents. All this fully proves that the policy documents were delivered to the complainant through Sandeep who is none else but witness from the side of the complainant in the proposal form as is evident from the proposal form Ex.OP2. The complainant did not deny that Sandeep was

-8-

not the witness of the complainant in the proposal form. Apart from this, said Sandeep signed the proposal form Ex.OP2 as a witness from the side of the complainant. Despatch proof from Bluedart Courier Ex.OP3 fully proves that policy documents of both the aforesaid policies were received by Sandeep on 7.3.2013 and 17.10.2013. The complainant himself has admitted that she has received the policy documents of both the aforesaid policies. The opposite party has proved on record that these documents were received by Sandeep on behalf of the complainant on 7.3.2013 and 17.10.2013 respectively. The complainant has alleged that she received the policy documents on 2.12.2013. But she could not produce any evidence oral or documentary to prove that she received the policies on 2.12.2013 and no 7.3.2013 and not on 17.10.2013 as fully proved by the opposite party, through one Sandeep, who is none else but witness of the complainant in the proposal form Ex.OP2. The complainant also failed to examine said Sandeep and also failed to produce on record any affidavit of said Sandeep that she received the policies documents on behalf of the complainant on 2.12.2013 and not on 7.3.2013 and 17.10.2013 respectively as fully proved by the opposite party. So it stands fully proved on record that the complainant received the policy documents through her witness Sandeep on 7.3.2013 and 17.10.2013 respectively. If the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, she could surrender the policies and apply for cancellation of the policies and refund of

-9-

the premium amount within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policies documents. But the complainant approached the opposite party for the refund of the premium amount vide letter Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-5 both dated 12.12.2013 i.e.after a lapse of a period of 9 months and two months respectively. As such the opposite party was justified in not accepting the request of the complainant for cancellation of the policies and the refund of the premiums amount.

9. Consequently we hold that complaint is without merit and the same is herby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

01.07.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)

/R/ Member Member