Punjab

Sangrur

CC/112/2015

Dimple Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Max LIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Anil Aggarwal

17 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    112

                                                Instituted on:      10.03.2015

                                                Decided on:       17.08.2015

 

Dimple Aggarwal wife of Vikas Aggarwal, resident of H.No.186, Mehal Mubarak Colony, Ward No.2, Street No.3, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             The Manager, MAX Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO-7, Leela Bhawan Market, Patiala.

2.             The Manager, AXIS Bank Limited, Sangrur.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Anil Aggarwal, Advocate.

For OP No.2              :       Shri N.S.Sahni, Advocate.

For OP No.1              :       Exparte.

 

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

 

1.             Smt. Dimple Aggarwal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that OP number 2 represented the husband of the complainant to purchase policy and taken Rs.25,000/- from her saving account on 26.6.2013 after charging Rs.71/- as demand draft charges and sent the same to OP number 1, but since there was difference between the terms of the policy and terms disclosed by OP number 2, so the proposal was got cancelled and the amount was credited in the account of husband of the complainant.  It is further averred that she was surprised when she received a call from OP number 1 for payment of second instalment of the policy, whereas the complainant did not purchase any policy. However, on inquiry it came to know that the OP number 2 misused the blank document of the complainant and issued policy by debiting joint account of the complainant on 9.9.2013 without her consent and knowledge of the complainant nor she received any policy.  As such, the complainant approached OP number 1 to know about the policy and then OP number 1 handed over Photostat copy of the policy first time on 11.12.2014 to the complainant under receipt and after receipt of the policy the complainant exercised her option and requested the OPs to cancel the policy and to refund the entire amount as she never agreed to purchase the policy, but the amount was not refunded to the complainant despite issuance of legal notice to the OPs.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of illegal deduction of her account i.e. 9.9.2013 till realization and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that the OP number 1 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 1 was proceeded exparte on 10.06.2015.

 

3.             In reply filed by Op number 2,  it has been denied that the OP number 2 represented the husband of the complainant to purchase the insurance policy, however, the husband of the complainant himself at his own purchased the policy from OP number 1.  It is admitted that demand draft of Rs.25,000/- was prepared on 26.6.2013 at the instance of husband of the complainant, however it is denied that OP number 2 sent the demand draft to OP number 1. It has been denied that there was difference in the terms of the policy as disclosed by OP number 2.  It is further stated that the said policy was got cancelled by the complainant with consent of her husband for the reason best known to them and the demand draft was cancelled on 9.9.2013 and the complainant signed at the back of the DD for cancelling the same.  It is further stated that on the same day i.e. on 9.9.2013, the complainant signed the debit voucher and debit voucher cum draft voucher for Rs.25,000/- for getting the new DD of Rs.25,000/- and also signed the same on receipt of DD.  The complainant again purchased the policy with her free sweet will and without any type of pressure. It is stated that the complainant duly received the policy. It has been denied that the complainant received the policy first time on 11.12.2014. It is further stated that husband of the complainant is Chartered Accountant and thus the question of signing the blank document does not arise at all.  It is stated that the complainant never requested the OPs for cancellation of the policy within the stipulated period and after receipt of welcome call and consent of the complainant, the policy was issued and now the same cannot be cancelled and the amount cannot be refunded.  Any deficiency in service on the part of OP number 2 has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of passbook, Ex.C-2 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 copies of postal receipts, Ex.C-5 copy of welcome letter and Ex.C-6 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit, Ex.OP2/2 copy of request letter for issuance of demand draft, Ex.Op2/3 copy of debit mandate, Ex.Op2/4 copy of application form for issuance of DD dated 9.9.2013, Ex.OP2/5 copy of DD got cancelled, Ex.OP2/6 copy of debit mandate dated 26.6.2013 and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of         the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             In the present case the complainant is claiming relief of cancellation of the policy in question from OP number 1, who has chosen to remain exparte.  The case of the complainant is that the earlier policy in question was got cancelled from OPs and the demand draft amounting to Rs.25,000/- was cancelled by OP number 2, as is evident from the copy of bank statement issued by OP number 2, which is on record as Ex.C-1. Further a bare perusal of it also reveals that on the same date i.e. 09.09.2013, the OP number 2 issued a demand draft of Rs.25,000/- by debiting the account of the complainant to the tune of Rs.25071/-, but we failed to understand that on the same date i.e. 09.09.2013, on one side the complainant has got cancelled the demand draft of Rs.25,000/- and on the same time he has requested the OP number 2 for issuance of the demand draft of Rs.25,000/-, but the complainant has denied this fact having requested  OP number 2 for issuance of the demand draft.  It is further case of the complainant that the complainant only came to know about the policy in question when a call for deposit of premium of second year was received from the OPs and only then the complainant approached OP number 1, who issued duplicate copy of welcome letter showing policy number 886567536 dated 17.09.2013, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-5.  As such, immediately after receipt of the letter, the complainant approached OP number 1 and requested for cancellation of the policy in question and refund of the amount thereof.  It is not the case of the OP number 1 that the complainant never approached for cancellation of the policy in question on 11.12.2014. Further a bare perusal of the letter/policy, Ex.C-5 clearly reveals that the agent for selling of this policy is OP number 2 i.e. “Agent name: AXIS Bank Ltd. Sangrur (455623)”, meaning thereby it is clear that the OP number 2 is the agent of OP number 1, who is working for getting commission and is selling the policies of OP number 1 by this way.   The complainant has also produced on record her own sworn affidavit Ex.C-6 to support her contention in the case. It is worth mentioning here that the OP number 1 did not appear to defend its case, rather it is OP number 2  i.e. AXIS Bank, who is defending OP number 1 as the OP number 2 is itself earning commission by selling the insurance policies of OP number 1.  Further para number 3(d) of the reply filed by OP number 2 is reproduced as “…. It is denied that the complainant received the policy first time on 11.12.2014. The complainant never requested the opposite parties for cancellation of the policy within the stipulated period and after receipt of Welcome call and after consent of the complainant, the policy was issued and now the same cannot be cancelled. The amount cannot be refunded…”.  Further we failed to understand how the OP number 2 can plead that the policy in question cannot be cancelled, as it is the OP number 1 who has to cancel the policy or to deny it.  In the present case the OP number 1 has not come forward to defend its case.   Further, nothing has been produced on record that the original policy ( a copy of which on record is Ex.C-5) was ever delivered to the complainant, if delivered, how and when the same was delivered.  In the circumstances of the case, we feel that the complainant has successfully proved her case that the policy in original bearing number 886567536 was never delivered to her and the same was delivered first time only on 11.12.2014 and accordingly the complainant applied for cancellation of the policy in question to OP number 2 on 11.12.2014.  Under the circumstances, we find that the OPs number 1 and 2 , who are working together are liable for the same.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we find it to be a case of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and allow the complaint and direct OP number 1 to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from 09.09.2013 till realisation.  Further OPs number 1 and 2 are directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.7500/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.2500/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

 

                Pronounced.

                August 17, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member