Delhi

North East

CC/133/2015

Shri Ashutosh Shaurya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Life Insurance Corporation of India - Opp.Party(s)

17 Sep 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 133/15

           

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Ashutosh Shaurya S/o Rajendra Prasad Sharma R/o F-57 Avantika Extention Ghaziabad-201002	Complainant
	Versus
	Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. Jeevan Prakash Building, 25 K.G. Marg Shahdara, New Delhi-110001	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION :

18.04.2015 17.09.2019 17.09.2019

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Facts of the present case as culled out in the present complaint are that complainant had approached OP at its Dilshad Garden, Delhi head office expressing desire of taking Jeevan Anand Policy (Policy) and the Senior branch Manager of OP had assured the complainant that the insured person under the said Policy shall get certain privileges / benefits in the nature of commission and credit card. The complainant, being convinced got himself assured with OP under the said Policy by paying premium of Rs. 34,231/- vide cheque cleared on 27.01.2014 in OP’s account. However, neither the complainant received Policy bond with respect to the Policy  No. 127375956 nor received any kind of commission or promised benefits viz credit card and all telephonic communications with OP were met with cold non responsive feedback. The complainant wrote several e-mails to OP between March 2014 and August 2014 enquiring about non receipt of Policy bond and credit card and other benefits viz commissions and followed up with several reminder e-mails but none of them were replied to by OP except an e-mail dated 27.3.2014 where OP forwarded his complaint to the servicing branch 11M instead of 12F which the complainant was corresponding with. The complainant was also informed about a committee having been formed to look into his grievance but to no avail except citing ‘Administrative Problem’. Therefore complainant was constrained to file the present complaint before this Forum alleging mis-representation and false promises made by OP inducing him to take the said Policy causing wrongful loss to him and prayed for issuance of directions against the OP to refund back the premium amount of Rs. 34,231/- paid by the complainant alongwith Rs. 60,000/- as compensation for false re-presentation.

Complainant has attached copy of savings bank passbook entry highlighting the premium amount of Rs. 34,231/- cleared on 27.01.2014, copy of e-mails between 25.03.2014 to 05.08.2014 written by complainant to OP enquiring about first payment slip, Policy bond, credit card and commission on Policy and copy of acknowledgement slip dated 05.11.2014 issued by OP in favour of the complainant acknowledging policy cancellation document.

2. Notice was issued to the OP on 29.04.2015. OP entered appearance and filed written statement on 27.11.2015 in which it took the preliminary objection that OP issues policy to its customers as per approved terms and conditions and not directly without agents. OP does not promise any lucrative or attractive or beneficial offers alongwith policies to its customers. OP denied complainant having approached it directly at its head office or having assured any such benefits or offers or payment of commission or issuance of credit card etc by its Senior Branch Manager who otherwise also is not authorized to canvas any insurance business directly. Lastly, OP urged that the Policy bond was received by Mr. Nischal Verma, DO Code 5294 posted at S.O. Branch Krishna Nagar, Delhi and when he tried to deliver the same to the complainant, the complainant refused to accept the same and therefore the Policy bond is lying with OP undelivered. The Policy bond has been received undelivered for the reason “Incomplete Address” and OP contended that any demand raised by complainant of commission and credit card was unwarranted and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement of OP was filed by the complainant in rebuttal to defence taken therein in which complainant submitted that he was made to suffer by OP for non supply of Policy documents despite payment of premium and several follow-ups which went un-responded to. The agent or officer of OP did not disclose lock-in period, Policy portfolio details, information pertaining to Policy etc at the time of issuance of the same and did not fulfill its own commitment of Policy benefits. Complainant denied having refused to accept the Policy bond and first premium receipt as alleged by OP.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by both the parties.
5. Written arguments were filed by both parties in reassertion / reiteration of their respective grievance/defence. OP placed on record copy of the Policy bond alongwith the copy of speed post envelope with postal remark dated 08.12.2014 ‘Returned’ due to ‘incomplete address’. Complainant filed certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act in support of Electronic Data (e-mails) placed on record.  
6. We have heard the rival contentions advanced by both the parties and have carefully examined the documentary placed by both sides.

The counsel for OP was put to specific query by this Forum to explain why a Policy commencing in January 2014 was showing the dispatch date of November 2014 and un-delivered status in December 2014 to which no cogent explanation or justification could come forth. Secondly, explanation was sought why barring a single e-mail response of transfer of complaint to 11M instead of 12F zone of OP vide e-mail dated 27.03.2014, no steps were taken or apprised of to the complainant’s grievance of non provision of Policy bond and payment slip for which again the OP had no defence or any e-mail to show its bonafide action taken. Instead there is an acknowledgment slip dated 05.11.2014 issued by OP for Policy cancellation though as per the bond, the dispatch date is shown as 08.11.2014. There is a clear contradiction in Para 7 of reply on merits in written statement filed by OP whereby on one hand OP states that the Policy bond was refused by the complainant from one Mr. Nischal Verma of its DO Code 5294 and on the other hand OP submitted that the Policy bond has been received back undelivered for the reason “Incomplete Address” which are two different and distinct reason which can be either or but cannot be both. Further, the agent name on the Policy bond is not Mr. Nischal Verma but Mr. Anil Rathore so even as per OP’s own statement of no direct selling of Policy but through its agents, Mr. Nischal Verma finds no mention in any of the documents nor was examined by OP to establish refusal on the part of the complainant to accept Policy bond. The Hon'ble National Commission in Kirandeep Kaur Vs Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd III (2018) CPJ 383 (NC) held insurance company deficient in service for non delivery of insurance policy bond parcel sent through speed post for which reason the complainant never got an opportunity to exercise free look period option of 15 days given therein. This issue of non delivery of Policy bond is therefore decided in favour of the complainant against the OP.

As regards averment of complainant of not having been provided with commission, credit card and other benefits as allegedly promised by OP as incentive for taking the said policy, admittedly no written assurance was given to him by OP in this regard nor did complainant disclose name of any officer / agent of OP who allegedly gave such verbal assurances to him. Had any such verbal assurance to him been given, the least the complainant would have done was to name the concerned officer / official in the complaint and implead him as a party to the complaint for summoning. The aforesaid conduct of complainant is yet another indicator that no such assurance was given. The Hon'ble National Commission in Mehinder Sharma Vs Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd I (2019) CPJ 91 (NC) made similar observations with respect to ‘Lifelong Unit Linked Plan’ Policy in which terms and conditions the insured did not agree with as contrary to that promised but did not exercise free look option nor impleaded any official of the insurance company on whose assurance he had claimed to have taken the said Policy. This issue therefore is not entertainable / non maintainable and decided against the complainant with no relief entitlement with regard thereto.

Be that as it may, deficiency of service on the part of OP is writ large on the face of documents and pleadings filed by itself in as much as there are contradictions with respect to the status of delivery / non delivery and unexplained delay in dispatch for policy issued in January, dispatched after 11 months thereof and undelivered in the 12^th month but no update was given to the complainant in this regard despite his several follow-ups for continues five months from March 2014 to August 2014. The purpose of taking the Policy stands defeated by efflux of time and complainant has also submitted that he is not desirous of availing the same.

Accordingly, we direct OP to refund the premium amount of Rs. 34,231/- to the complainant since he has not availed of any Policy benefit. We further direct OP to pay a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as compensation to the complainant towards mental harassment and deficiency of service.

7.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
8.   File be consigned to record room.
9.   Announced on  17.09.2019

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member