Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/34/2014

jaswant kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Life insurance comp - Opp.Party(s)

Sh HS Bhutta

30 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                                                                      Consumer Complaint No.34 of 2014

                                                                                                     Date of institution:  07.03.2014                                                                                                                                                                             Date of decision  :   30.04.2015

Jaswant Kaur wife of late Gurdev Singh resident of Dera Mangal Das, New Malwa Colony, Patiala, Tehsil and District Patiala.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. ING Vysya Bank and Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office-Jassar Complex, Near Jyoti Sarup Chowk, Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Branch Manager.
2. ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Ltd., Regd. Office-ING Vysya House, 5^th Floor, No.22, M.G. Road, Bangalore 560001,INDIA, through its M.D./Director/Authorized person.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

            Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.   

            Smt. Veena Chahal, Member.

Present :    Sh.H.S.Bhutta, Adv. Cl. for the complainant      

                Sh. Vinay Sood, Adv. Cl. for the OPs.

ORDER

By Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                   Complainant, Jaswant Kaur, resident of Tehsil and District Patiala has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties ( hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-

2.                On 14.8.2010, the complainant purchased a Non Unit Linked insurance policy namely ING New Best bearing No.01941858, after having paid a sum of Rs.8,60,000/-, as premium on the assurance given by the agent of the OPs that in case of dissatisfaction, she can get the policy terminated and can get back the full premium amount alongwith interest @9%. She was also assured that the policy documents will be sent within 90 days of the insurance but till today no policy documents have been received by her. On 22.12.2010 and 21.3.2012 the complainant gave written applications for the supply of policy documents but to no effect. After the completion of three years i.e. on 7.10.2013, the complainant requested the OPs to give the agreed amount i.e. Rs. 11,05,100/-. A printed standard formatted surrender form was got signed from the complainant by stating that unless and until this form is not signed the OPs will not release any payment to her. The complainant was shocked to know that only an amount of Rs.8,73,043/- was credited in her account. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 17.10.2013 through Sh.H.S.Bhutta,Advocate but no heed was paid rather the OPs are putting off the matter on one or the other pretext. Thus, there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay Rs.2,32,057/-, the balance amount and Rs.20,000/-as compensation and litigation expenses.

3.                On notice, the OPs appeared and filed separate written versions. In the written version filed on behalf of OP No.1, it has taken preliminary objection that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint, as there was no office of the OPs on 14.8.2010 in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. It is denied if, any policy was sold to the complainant. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.                In the written version filed on behalf of OP No.2, it is stated that ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Limited is a company engaged in life insurance business and currently is known as Exide Life Insurance Company Limited. It is admitted that on 14.8.2010 the proposal for “New Best Years Plan” was submitted by the complainant, which was approved by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA). It is also admitted that the initial premium of Rs.8,60,000/- was paid by the complainant and a regular premium of Rs.12000/- for a term of five years was to be paid annually with vesting term as 12 years was also opted by the complainant. It is admitted that policy bearing No.01941858 alongwith the terms and conditions governing the policy and a welcome letter to the complainant was issued on 20.8.2010. It is stated that as per regulation 6(2) of (Protection of Policyholder’s Interest) Regulation, 2002 issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, the policy holder is at liberty to review the terms and conditions of the policy and has the option to cancel the policy by stating the reason for his/her objection within 15 days(free look period) of the receipt of the policy bond. It is also submitted that in such cases the insurer is bound to deduct charges like stamp duty, medical examination etc and will refund the balance premium to the policyholder. It is further submitted that the complainant has never raised any objection to the terms and conditions of the policy within 15 days of the receipt of the policy documents. It is further submitted that after having paid the initial premium no other amount was paid by the complainant towards the policy. In the month of September, 2013, the complainant approached the OP and submitted the surrender request form dated 30.9.2013, which was duly acknowledged on 3.10.2013 by the OP. After ascertaining the same the OP processed the surrender request of the policy and transferred the amount of Rs.8,73,043.60/- in the account of the complainant and the complainant confirmed the same, vide letter dated 11.10.2013. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.                In order to prove her case, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.C1 her affidavit, copy of receipt Ex.C2, copy of letter Ex.C3, copy of letter dated 21.03.12 Ex.C4, copy of legal notice Ex.C5, postal receipt Ex.C6 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, on behalf of the OPs their counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OP1/1 affidavit of Sh.Sumit Singh, Branch Manager, ING Vysya Bank, Ex.OP2/1 affidavit of Chethan P. General Manager-Legal of ING Vysya Life Insurance Co.Ltd, Ex.OP2/2 copy of proposal form, Ex.OP2/3 copy of letter dated 27^th May 2014, Ex.OP2/4 copy of surrender request form, Ex.OP2/5 copy of letter dated 11-Oct.13, Ex.OP2/6 copy of attendance register and closed the evidence.

6.                The ld.counsel for the complainant has submitted that the primary dispute in the present complaint is whether the insurance policy was sent to the complainant or not. He has submitted that the OPs have not produced any postal receipt, acknowledgement, postal certificate, dispatch register or delivery report, showing the fact of sending the original policy documents. There is no single documentary evidence of the OPs in this regard. The ld.counsel also stated that the present complaint is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, as the proposal form i.e Ex-OP2 was signed and executed at district Fathegarh Sahib, therefore part of cause of action arose in favour of the complaint to file the present complaint before this Forum. He further submitted that the present policy is not a unit linked policy as the same is a non investment policy and the same is evident from proposal form i.e Ex-OP2/2. He has argued that in view of number of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission in the present case also adverse inference may be drawn. The ld.counsel also submitted that the judgments cited by the OPs in their written version cannot be considered by this Forum as the same have not been placed on record. The ld.counsel relied on the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in the case Ms.Shefali Bhargava Vs Indraprastha Appollo Hospital & Anr,2003(1)CPJ 216 NC, wherein it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that “where party was in a position to produce evidence, if not produced the same, must suffer from adverse inference”.

7.                On the other hand, the ld.counsel for the OPs has submitted that the complainant did not, at any stage, raise the dispute with regard to non delivery of the policy or its terms. Now in order to get some extra money and to cover her fault, she has filed the present complaint. The ld. counsel has further submitted that complainant had applied for the policy of insurance and after understanding the terms and condition of the policy had agreed to pay the premium. Thereafter the complainant preferred to surrender her policy and received Rs.8,73,043.60/- in her account, vide letter dated 11.10.2013.The rest of the money was deducted as per the terms and conditions of the said policy and the complainant is not eligible/entitled to receive the same as it is evident from Ex.OP1/1 affidavit of Sh.Sumit Singh, Branch Manager, ING Vysya Bank and Ex.OP2/1 affidavit of Chethan P. General Manager-Legal. Now in order to extract more money/payment the complainant has cooked up the plea that she did not receive the policy documents. The ld. counsel argued that from the entire evidence tendered by the OPs i.e Ex-OP1/1 to OP2/6, it is ample clear that the appropriate deductions were only done keeping in view the terms and conditions of the policy. He stated rather the OPs fully accommodated the complainant in pursuing her policy matter.

8.                After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions, we find that there is force in the plea of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant. The evidence tendered Ex.C1 affidavit of complainant, copy of receipt i.e Ex.C2, copy of letter i.e Ex.C3, copy of letter dated 21.03.12,Ex.C4, alongwith copies of legal notice Ex.C5, and postal receipt i.e Ex.C6 clearly proves the case of the complainant. The OPs have not been able to rebut the case of the complainant. The OPs have failed to place on record any document, which can prove that the policy documents were delivered to the complainant at her permanent address. In view of the above discussions, we find that the policy documents were not received by the complainant and OPs has committed deficiency in service by not supplying the original policy documents to the complainant despite her repeated requests. With regard to refund of the premiums paid by the complainant, it has come to the notice of this Forum that Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Life Insurance Corpn.of India and Ors Vs Siba Prasad Dash(Dr.) and Ors.IV(2008)CPJ 156 (NC) has observed that “if the policy lapsed, under no provision of the terms of Policy or law, any Fora could direct for refund of premium(s)”. Accordingly, we partly accept the present complaint against the OPs for being negligent for not supplying of the original policy documents. The complainant is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 10000/- on account of suffering of mental agony and harassment in the matter of non delivery of original policy documents by the OPs. The complainant is also held entitled to a sum of Rs. 5000/-, as litigation cost. The OPs are directed to comply with the order of this Forum within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, in case the OPs fails to comply with this order the OPs shall also be held liable to pay 6 % till its realization .

9.              The arguments on the complaint were heard on 29.04.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

    Pronounced

    Dated:30.04.2015                                                                     (A.P.S.Rajput)                                                                                                                                          President   

 

    (Veena Chahal)   

     Member