Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/40/2021

Bharti Axa Life Insurance Company Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manvinder Kaur - Opp.Party(s)

Karandeep Singh Cheema, Gaurav Bhardwaj & Chetan Gupta Adv.

28 Feb 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

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

Appeal No	:	A/40/2021
Date  of  Institution	:	31/05/2021
Date   of   Decision	:	28/02/2022

 

 

 

 

 

1.   Bharti AXA Life Insurance Co. Limited, through its Managing Director, having registered office Unit 601 & 602, 6^th Floor, Raheja Titanium, Off Western Express Highway, Gore Gaon, Mumbai –          400 063.

 

2.   Bharti AXA Life Insurance Co. Limited, SCO 208-209, Second Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Area Manager/ Authorized Representative.

 

….Appellants

 

V E R S U S

 

Manvinder Kaur wife of Sh. Rajanbir Singh, Resident of House No.31, Sector 69, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

 

….Respondent

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI    PRESIDENT

MRS. PADMA PANDEY            MEMBER

          MR. RAJESH K. ARYA           MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the Appellants.
		Sh. Yadvinder Singh Dhillon, Advocate for the Respondent.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

 

 

This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.02.2021 rendered by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (now, District Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh), vide which, it allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing no. CC/228/2018, which reads as under:-

 

 

12]   From the above discussion and findings, the deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties have been proved, which certainly has caused immense harassment & mental agony to the complainant.  Therefore, the complaint stands allowed against OPs with direction to refund an amount of Rs.5 lacs, being the premium amount of both policies in question, along with interest @9% p.a. from June, 2013 till the date of its actual payment. The OPs are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing her harassment & mental agony, along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

      This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties jointly & severally within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.10000/- apart from above relief.”

 

2.      Before the District Commission-II, it was the case of the Respondent/Complainant that she was approached by one Kapil Malhotra, claimed to be IRDA Agent and told her that in case she invest Rs.50 lacs with various companies, then she would be eligible for sanctioning of licence for setting-up of Petrol Pump by the company. After the investments were made, the Respondent/complainant came to know that she had been allured by the persons who claimed to be connected with various companies for investment purposes. Further averred that these persons also with motive to further extract more money from the Respondent/Complainant contacted her in the month of September, 2014 and told her to make available a sum of Rs.2.5 Lacs as the processing charges for the setting-up of the Petrol Pump which was promised at the time of investments as process was on the verge of completion. It was stated that one person namely Ajay Kumar took Rs.50,000/— from the Respondent/ Complainant and thereafter, the other accomplice of Ajay Kumar kept on demanding for the remaining amount.  The Respondent/complainant smelt some foul play, thus informed the Police; when these persons came to take the money, the Police reached on the spot and apprehended them. In this regard, the Police registered F.I.R. No.221 dated 21.10.2014 U/s 406, 420 IPC, Police Station Phase—I, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Ann.C-1) against them.  It was averred that the Respondent/complainant after having indulged in various correspondences with the companies was refunded an amount of Rs.43 Lacs, as alleged in complaint, which was credited to the account of the Respondent/complainant by the various companies, but the Opposite Parties/Appellants did not pay any heed to the requests made by the complainant and did not bother to go through the facts of the FIR which primarily established the offence committed by the brokers of various companies.  It was alleged that the Opposite Parties/Appellants had not refunded the amount of Rs.5 lacs which got deposited by them against policies which were also part of transaction done by the said persons by alluring and mis-representing the facts. It was also averred that the Respondent/Complainant on receiving the Policies, came to know that the same were not having one-time payment plans but every year there was an installment of Rs.2,49,999.81 to be paid to the Appellants/ Opposite Parties, but this fact was not intimated to the Respondent/ Complainant at the time of filling of the proposal form on 13.5.2013 and 14.5.2013. The Respondent/ Complainant on number of occasions tried to bring to the knowledge of the Appellants/ Opposite Parties that the policies so issued have not been issued as per the information so provided to the Respondent/Complainant. It was also averred that till Nov., 2014, the Appellants/ Opposite Parties did not bother to even check their own records and only when the Respondent/ Complainant kept on informing the Appellants/ Opposite Parties, the two excess policies came to be cancelled by them. It was also pleaded that the Appellants/ Opposite Parties have received the amount by mis-representing and by alluring the Respondent/ Complainant in order to make wrongful gains by issuing policies without disclosing the correct figures and their terms & conditions, therefore, the Appellants/ Opposite Parties are liable to refund the amount so received from the Respondent/ Complainant along with interest. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. District Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Appellants/Opposite Parties.

 

3.      In the reply filed before the District Commission-II, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, the Appellants/Opposite Parties pleaded that the policies No.5009928952 & 5009874446 in the name of policyholder i.e. Respondent/ complainant were issued in response to the proposal forms duly signed by the Respondent/ complainant (Ann.R-1 & R-2).  The other two policies bearing No.5009874453 & 5009903542 (Ann.R-3 & R-4) initially issued in favour of the Respondent/ Complainant were cancelled due to dishonouring of premium cheques.  The Respondent/ Complainant failed to return or withdraw the above said policies within the free look period of 15 days as provided in said policies in case she was not satisfied with features or terms & conditions thereof.  It was submitted that after a span of almost one and half year from the date of issuance of policy documents, the Company received complaints on 15.10.2014, 18.10.2014 & 3.11.2014 alleging mis-selling (spurious and hoax calls) and therefore seeking cancellation under the aforesaid policies. After investigating the complaint and verifying its record, the Company was unable to consider the request of the Respondent/complainant and accordingly, the Company vide email dated 14.11.2014 (Ann.R-6) communicated its decision to the Respondent/ complainant.  It was submitted that Appellants/OP Company received an email complaint on 7.12.2014 & 13.12.2014 from the Respondent/ Complainant for cancellation of Policies No.5009903542 and 5009874453 and the same was duly replied (Ann.R-7 & R-8).  It was also submitted that once again the Appellants/ Opposite Parties received email complaints dated 28.1.2015, 13.2.2015 & 11.3.2015 from the Respondent/ Complainant, which were duly replied on 19.3.2015 (Ann.R-9 & R-10).  It was asserted that the Appellants/OP Company reiterates that the matter was duly investigated and it turned out that the allegations of mis-selling is bereft of merits. It was pleaded that the policies bearing No.5011126900 and 5011131595 were issued and were also cancelled in free-look period after receiving request from the Respondent/complainant in August, 2013 and the proceeds towards cancellation were duly credited to the Respondent/Complainant’s account on 13.10.2013 (Ann.R-11). It was submitted that the Appellants/OP Company is not privy to the communications and dealing of the complainant with alleged persons, who are neither the employees nor advisors of the Appellants/OP Company. So, the allegations are false, frivolous and are concocted one. It has also been submitted that the Respondent/ complainant has already approached the Ombudsman, Chandigarh with her complaint and it had already decided the matter on merits. It is asserted that currently the alleged policies have lapsed and the Respondent/complainant may get reinstated the policies to enjoy the benefit of the policies. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Appellants/Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

 

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, Ld. District Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh accepted the Complaint and issued directions to the Appellants/ Opposite Parties as noticed in the opening para of this order.  

 

5.      Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/ Opposite Parties.

 

6.      We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care, along with the written arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides. 

 

7.      After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

8.      The record of the Ld. District Commission shows that the Respondent/ Complainant having been misrepresented opted for various insurance policies against false allurement of her getting sanctioned license for setting-up of Petrol Pump by the Company. Record also shows, when the Respondent/ complainant lodged an F.I.R. against the misrepresentation committed by the agents of various insurance companies, those insurance companies, in order to save themselves from the legal consequences refunded the amount thereof, not only after the expiry of free look period of 15 days of the policies, rather after period of more than a year and duly credited the amounts thereof in the account of Respondent/ complainant. There is no denying the fact that the Respondent/ Complainant was issued the disputed policies in question during that period only when the other policies were so issued by various insurance companies under the garb of getting her sanction of license for setting-up of Petrol Pump by the Company. The refund of premiums made by the other insurance companies to the Respondent/complainant after having realized fraudulent act committed by their agents/ representatives, proved the allegations made by the Respondent/complainant about her being mislead and mis-represented while issuing the insurance policies. In support of her claim, the Respondent/ Complainant ably placed on record the statements showing refund of premiums by other insurance companies. The record placed before us, proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Respondent/ complainant has been duped by the agents/ representatives of the various insurance companies including the Appellants/OP Company in question. In this backdrop, we feel that by not refunding the premium amount of subject policies, issued by Appellants/ OPs by mis-selling & mis-representation, the Appellants/ Opposite Parties surely and definitely committed not only gross deficiency in service, but also resorted to unfair trade practice. Furthermore, the plea of the Appellants/ Opposite Parties qua the expiry of free look period provided in the policy was rightly held to be bereft of any substance. Evidently, it was only on the repeated requests made by the Respondent/ complainant that the Appellants/ Opposite Parties after having checked their record, cancelled the Policies bearing No. 5009874453 & 5009903542 issued earlier and that also in Nov., 2014 whereas the said policies were issued in May 16, 2013 & May 3, 2013 respectively. Also, careful perusal of the correspondences exchanged between the parties shows that the Respondent/ complainant has been made target of mis-selling of policies in the garb of fake allurement of sanctioning of license for establishing a Petrol Pump.  In nutshell, the Ld. District Commission had dealt with all the above said deficiencies threadbare and partly allowed the Complaint, which we feel does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

  

9.      No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the Appellants.

 

10.      In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Learned District Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed.

 

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

 

12.      The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

28^th Feb., 2022                                

Sd/-

(RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

                                  (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

“Dutt”