DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Harjit Singh Sidhu s/o Sh. Bachittar Singh, R/o #1698, Phase-10, Sector 64, Mohali (Punjab).

              ---Complainant

Vs.

1.   DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Co. Limited, through its Managing Director & C.E.O., 4^th floor, Building No.9B Tower 8, Cyber City, DLF City, Phase III, Gurgaon – 122002.

2.   Mr. Mandeep Singla, Territory Manager, DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Co. Limited, Sector 35, Chandigarh.

3.   The Manager, DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Co. Limited, Chandigarh, Sector 35, Chandigarh.

4.   Mr. Indresh Shukla, S.C.O. No.5, 2^nd Floor, (Sidhi Vinayak) near Gurdwara, Sector 34, Chandigarh.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:   MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA            PRESIDING MEMBER

SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU    MEMBER

Argued By:    Complainant in person.

           Sh. Gurvinder Singh, Proxy Counsel for

Sh. Karan Nehra, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 to 3.

           Opposite Party No.4 ex-parte.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.          The Complainant had purchased an insurance policy in the name of his grand daughter Seerat Sidhu on 24.10.2011, and paid the 1^st premium of Rs.4917/-. The insurance policy dated 31.10.2011 was received by the Complainant on 13.11.2011 through post. Not satisfied with the policy, the Complainant vide letter dated 18.11.2011 (received in the Sec.35 Office of OP on 23.11.2011), requested the Opposite Parties to cancel the said policy and to return the amount. However, vide letter dated 03.12.2011/ 7.12.2011, the OP-Insurance Company informed the Complainant that they were unable to process the request due to FLC Decline/Out Side Free look Period. Thereafter, the Complainant made frantic efforts and wrote letters to the Opposite Parties to cancel the policy in question as he was no more interested in continuation of the policy, but to no avail. Eventually, a show cause notice was also issued to the Opposite Parties, which was not even replied. Hence, this complaint.  

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

3.          Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 in their joint reply have pleaded that the Complainant after completely understanding the terms & condition of DPLI Assure Money Plus Plan had voluntarily applied for an insurance policy vide proposal form dated 24.10.2011. In the proposal form the Complainant gave all relevant details & information in the prescribed form, for an assured sum amounting to Rs.1,11,680/- for which a premium amounting to Rs.5,000/- was proposed to be paid on half yearly basis for a term of 20 years. In the said policy the Complainant was proposed as Proposer and one Seerat Sidhu was proposed as life assured. Based on the information, the answering Opposite Parties issued the Policy bearing No. 000091810 to the Complainant with commencement date as 31.10.2011. Thereafter, the policy documents along with the schedule were sent to the Complainant which were duly delivered to the address of the Complainant on 04.11.2011. It is asserted that the Opposite Parties on 23.11.2011 received the very first written communication for cancellation of the policy which was beyond the free look period. The Opposite Parties bound by I.R.D.A. Regulation and left with no choice denied the request of the Complainant vide letter dated 03.11.2011. Denying other allegations of the Complainant, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

4.          Despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.4; therefore, it was proceeded against exparte on 12.11.2012.

5.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

6.          We have heard the Complainant in person and learned proxy counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 (Opposite Party No.4 being ex-parte) and have perused the record. 

7.          The Complainant had subscribed for a DPLI Assure Money Plus Plan unit linked policy and had planned to pay Rs.5000/- as bi-annual premium. The policy was to run for a term of 20 years and the sum assured was Rs.1,11,680/-. On 13.11.2011 after receiving the policy document, the Complainant preferred to get the policy cancelled and made a written representation dated 18.11.2011, which was received at the office of Opposite Parties on 23.11.2011. The Opposite Parties while replying to this communication through their letter dated 03.12.2011, considered the demand of the Complainant but refused to cancel the policy, claiming it to be outside the free look period.

8.          We have minutely gone through the letter dated 03.12.2011 (Annexure C-3), but could not find any reference date on which the Opposite Parties could confirm the delivery of the policy document at Complainant’s end. The Complainant after receipt of Annexure C-3, again made numerous representations which are annexed as Annexure C-4 and C-5. But having failed in his efforts, served a notice upon the Opposite Parties registering his grievance towards them.

9.          We feel that the Opposite Parties while defending their stand vis-à-vis their refusal to cancel the policy, could only be held right if they could prove that the request of the Complainant for cancellation of the policy was beyond the free look period. In order to establish this fact a concrete proof with regard to the date of delivery of the policy to the Complainant was to be mentioned, but the entire reply of the Opposite Parties is bereft of any such disclosure.

10.        The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Commission, in Revision Petition No. 1324 of 2012, has held that the onus to prove the delivery of the policy terms & conditions to the consumer was on the Insurance Company and in order to substantiate this, a cogent proof of such delivery by way of a receipt duly signed by the consumer was the only evidence, that could satisfy such factor. Hence, in the present case, the Opposite Parties have failed to bring on record any proof that the said policy document was delivered to the Complainant on a given date, by preserving such receipt signed by the consumer, as a token of proof of its delivery.  

11.        Hence, in the given situation, the date mentioned as 13.11.2011 by the Complainant of the delivery of the document deserves to be believed, as this fact has not been controverted by the Opposite Parties by bringing on record any cogent, reliable and trust worthy evidence. The Opposite Parties have failed to prove their case in a befitting manner. Hence, we have no other alternative, but to believe the averments of the complaint. The act of the Opposite Parties No. 1 & 3 in not honouring the request for discontinuation of the policy, which was made within a free look period, is an act of deficient service.

12.        The Complainant has levelled allegations against the officials of the Opposite Parties (namely Opposite Parties No.2 & 4), but at the same time, the Complainant is not a consumer qua them. We feel that even if there was any wrong act on the part of Opposite Parties No.2 & 4, even then, for their acts, Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 is responsible. Hence, the Complainant not being a consumer qua Opposite Parties No. 2 & 4, the present complaint is dismissed qua them.   

13.        In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 , and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 are directed to refund the premium amount of Rs.5,000/- along with compensation to the tune of Rs.3,000/-. As the Complainant himself is an advocate, so we prefer not to award litigation costs.

14.        The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount of Rs.8,000/-, (Rs.5,000/- + Rs.3,000/- as awarded in Para 13 above), from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.  

15.        The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

14^th June, 2013                            

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER