Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/205/2015

DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lakhbir Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Karan Nehra, Adv.

07 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                                 

First Appeal No.	:	205 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	21.08.2015
Date of Decision		07.10.2015

 

1. DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Building No.9-B, 4^th Floor, Cyber City, DLF City Gurgaon-122002 (erstwhile DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Co. Ltd.).
2. DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 335-336, 1^st Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager (erstwhile DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Co. Ltd.).

 ……Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

Versus

1. Lakhbir Singh son of Sh. Sarwan Singh earlier r/o # 35, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh. Now resident of #814, First Floor, Sector 38A, Chandigarh.

….Respondent/Complainant.

2. Sridhar Insurance Broker Pvt. Ltd., SCO 845, Level-1, Shivalik Enclave, Mani Majra, Chandigarh through its Manager.

(Service of Respondent No.2 dispensed with vide order dated 24.08.2015)

....Respondent/Opposite Party No.3.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

               

Argued by:

 

Sh. Karan Nehra, Advocate for the appellants.

Sh. Jaskanwar Pal Singh, son and authorised representative of Sh. Lakhbir Singh, respondent No.1, in person.

Service of respondent No.2 dispensed with vide order dated 24.08.2015.              

 

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

            This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.07.2015 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (in short District Forum) vide which, it allowed Consumer Complaint No.751 of 2014, filed by the complainant (now respondent No.1) against Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 only (now appellants) and directed them as under:-

“12.        For the reasons recorded above, it is held that even though this Forum has no jurisdiction to go into the questions of fraud and cheating, yet, since deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs 1 & 2 are proved, therefore, the complaint is partly allowed qua them. OPs 1 & 2 are directed :-

(i)     To refund the amount of Rs.1,99,000/- relating to policy Nos.000087968 and 000088141 after deducting the expenses incurred and risk premium for the period covered alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till realization.

(ii)    To make payment of a compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant for mental agony and physical harassment.

(iii)   To pay Rs.7,500/- to the complainant towards costs of litigation.

13.        This order be complied with by OPs 1 & 2 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.

14.        The complaint fails against OP-3 and is dismissed because it were OPs 1 & 2 who had received the payment and have to refund the amount.”

2.         The facts, in brief, are that Opposite Party No.3, being the agent of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, approached the complainant and offered him a Policy by paying single premium and assured that the returns would be 20% interest per year. It was stated that blank proposal forms were got signed from the complainant on 29.9.2011 and the complainant paid premiums of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.99,000/- respectively. It was further stated that, accordingly, DLF Pramerica Dhan Suraksha Plan Nos.000087968 and 000088141 were issued to the complainant but the same had some mistakes. It was further stated that the Policies were given for correction and the same were again issued on 4.9.2013 (Annexures C-1 and C-2). It was further stated that Opposite Party No.3 again approached the complainant for some other Policies, upon which, he raised the issue of wrong information and signatures on the Policy. It was further stated that the employee of Opposite Party No.3 assured that it shall be corrected but Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 refused to do so.  It was further stated that the agent also sold to the complainant many other Policies of Birla Sun Life, Bajaj Alliance, HDFC Life, Shree Ram Life etc. and he duly gave the complaint of mis-selling and unfair trade practice regarding the signatures of the life assured. It was further stated that even the birth certificate of the granddaughter of the complainant was also procured unfairly as he never provided the same. It was further stated that the other companies cancelled the Policies as well as the agency of Opposite Party No.3 and refunded the premiums back. It was further stated that the complainant gave complaints to the Opposite Parties on 19.12.2012, 23.7.2013, 19.8.2013, 27.8.2013 and 12.9.2013 but they refused to cancel the Policies and refund the amount. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice.

3.         When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, seeking directions to the Opposite Parties, to refund the amount of Rs.1,99,000/- alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of deposit till realization; pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

4.         Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, in their joint written version, took up certain preliminary objections including that the complaint had been filed beyond the period of limitation of 2 years; that the proceedings before the Forum are essentially summary in nature and issues such as fraud and forgery, which involve disputed factual questions, should not be adjudicated before the Forum. On merits, it was admitted that the Policies, in question, having term of 20 years, were issued by the Opposite Parties based on the proposals dated 29.9.2011. It was stated that the complainant alongwith the life insured, after completely understanding all terms and conditions, had signed the proposal forms. It was also admitted that the Policies, in question, were corrected and re-issued to the complainant on 4.9.2013. It was further stated that upon issuance of the said Policy contracts, the Opposite Parties neither received any query nor a complaint during the free look period, therefore, it was presumed legally that the complainant and life insured were satisfied with the Policies so issued.  It was further stated that the copy of birth certificate of minor, Ms. Reet was provided by the complainant.  It was further stated that the Opposite Parties duly replied each and every letter of the complainant and provided the resolution of each and every query. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.         Opposite Party No.3, in its written version, also took up a number of preliminary objections including that the complaint was not maintainable qua it as it was only a broker and there was no privity of contract; that present complaint involves complicated/ disputed questions of facts which could not be decided in summary jurisdiction of the Forum. It was denied that Opposite Party No.3 had issued the Policy to the complainant or that it received the cheque dated 29.9.2011 from him. It was stated that the office of Opposite Party No.3 transmitted the leads, which were generated through tele-executives and further passed the same to the sales team of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, who met the clients and explained the plans and features and got all the documents and proposal forms duly signed by the buyer of the Policy.  It was further stated that the complainant had not lodged any protest with Opposite Party No.3. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on its part, nor did it indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

6.         The complainant filed replication, wherein, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint and repudiated the same, contained in the written versions of the Opposite Parties. 

7.         The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

8.         After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, against Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and dismissed the same against Opposite Party No.3, as stated above, in the opening para of the instant order. 

9.         Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

10.       We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.

11.       The Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 submitted that the Policies No.00087968 and 000088141 were issued to respondent No.1/complainant on payment of first premium on 5.10.2011 and 7.10.2011 and option of free look period of 15 days was available from the date of issue of the Policies in question. He further submitted that due to non-payment of renewal/second premium of Polices, on due dates viz. 5.10.2012 and 7.10.2012 respectively, the said Policies lapsed. He further submitted that there was no mis-selling of the Policies in question. He further submitted that aforesaid Policies No.00087968 and 000088141 were again issued vide letters dated 4.9.2013 on furnishing the Indemnity Bond by respondent No.1/complainant. He further submitted that the Policies, in question, stood expired due to non-payment of renewal premium in the year 2012 and the Policies on 4.9.2013 were, in fact, duplicate Policies and option of free look period to seek cancellation and refund was not available w.e.f. 4.9.2013 but from the date when original Policies were issued in October, 2011. He further submitted that the order passed by the District Forum was, thus, liable to be set aside being unsustainable in the eyes of law. 

12.       The authorised representative of respondent No.1, in person, submitted that the Policies, in question, were sold to his father who was bed ridden on the clear understanding that only one premium was payable. He further submitted that blank proposal forms were got signed from the complainant. He further submitted that it was only after repeated requests that the Policies, in question, were corrected and  vide letters dated 4.9.2013, respondent No.1/complainant was clearly given an option to review the Policies and to avail free look period option. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum was just and correct and the same deserved to be upheld.

13.       It is evident from record that Policies No.000097968 and No.000088141, with commencement date 5.10.2011 and 7.10.2011, were issued by the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, to the complainant, who paid the initial premiums totaling Rs.1,99,000/- against these Policies. Admittedly, the next renewal/second premiums of the aforesaid Policies, were due on 5.10.2012 and 7.10.2012 respectively. The respondent No.1/complainant has specifically averred that the Policies, in question, contained wrong information and the Policies were given to the appellants for correction. It is also not disputed that vide letters dated 4.9.2013 (at Pages 12 & 30  of District Forum File), the option to return the Policies, in question, was given to respondent No.1/complainant within a free look period of 15 days. The following contents of these letters, being relevant, are extracted, hereunder:-

“……If you are not satisfied with any aspect of the Policy, you can return it to us within 15 days of receipt. For Unit Link products, we will refund you the fund value on date of cancellation and any charges paid by you (post deduction of charges already incurred by us such as medical fees, stamp duty & risk premium for the period covered). For other products, we will refund premium paid less expenses incurred and risk premium for the period covered…..”

The contention of the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 that the Policies, in question, stood lapsed during the year 2012 and option of free look period for cancellation and seeking refund was not available to the complainant, is highly incorrect and illogical on the face of aforesaid categoric extracted position. They were not prevented from disclosing the factual position regarding lapse of Policies to respondent No.1/complainant whereas the contents aforesaid clearly gave an option to respondent No.1/complainant to review the Policies and avail the option of cancellation. It was on the basis of such an opportunity afforded to respondent No.1/complainant that he applied for cancellation vide his letter dated 12.9.2013 (Annexure C-5 at Page 61 of the District Forum file). Once respondent No.1/complainant was afforded an opportunity, the District Forum was right in holding that “…..OPs 1 & 2 did not mention in their letter dated 22.9.2013 as to why they had not cancelled the said policies within free look period of 15 days as per their averments in the letters dated 4.9.2013 (at page 12 & 30 of the paper book). We are of the view that the act of OPs 1 & 2 in not cancelling policies No.000087968 and 000088141 and refunding the amount constitutes deficiency in service on their part. We may mention that though OPs have produced evidence to this effect by way of Annexure E that the previous policies were delivered to the complainant on 10.10.2011 and 12.10.2011 respectively and no requests for refund of the amount during free look period of 15 days were made by the complainant, yet, taking into consideration the fact that vide letters dated 4.9.2013, the complainant was again given 15 days period for refund of the fund value, the non-refund of the amount also amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of OPs 1&2.”

14.       The contention of the appellants/Opposite Parties No.,1 & 2 that the Policies, in question, were issued on the basis of indemnity bond is of no help to them, as no such evidence was brought on record before the District Forum, during the pendency of the complaint. Further Annexure A-7 (Indemnity Bond)  annexed with the appeal in support of above contention cannot be taken or read into evidence at the appellate stage, when no application for placing the same on record was moved by the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. The District Forum was, thus, right in allowing the complaint against the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and it rightly ordered for refund of Rs.1,99,000/- alongwith compensation in the sum of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.7,500/- as cost of litigation. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is liable to be upheld.

15.       No other point was urged by the Counsel for the parties.

16.       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of any substance, is dismissed with no order as to cost. The impugned order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the District Forum is upheld.

15.       Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

16.       The file be consigned to the Record Room, after due completion.

Pronounced.

October  07, 2015

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

Ad