Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/30/2015

Manmohan Singh Banvet - Complainant(s)

Versus

Max Life Insruance - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Sharma

10 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.       :         30 of 11.03.2015

Date of Decision                     :        10.09.2015

Manmohan Singh Banvet S/o Sewa Singh R/o Village Langroya Tehsil Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar, age 66 years.

                                                                             …Complainant

Versus

1.       Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch Banga Road, Nawanshahr through its Branch Manager.

2.       Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited, 11^th Floor, DLF Square, Jacaranda Marg, DLF Phase-II, Gurgaon, through its Director.

3.       Axis Bank Limited, Branch Banga Road Nawanshahr, through its General Manager.                                                     

          …Opposite Parties

                             Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH.G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

MS.SUDHA SHARMA, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :         Sh.Amit Sharma, Advocate

For OPs No.1&2                     :         Sh.Jatin Sharma, Advocate

For OP No.3                                     :         Sh.Ravinder Parmar, Advocate 

 

ORDER

MS.SUDHA SHARMA, MEMBER

 

1.       This complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops.

2        It is averred that complainant is NRI and having joint saving account with the OP No.3 bearing No.665010100007177.  In the month of March 2012, complainant approached the OP No.3 and he showed his willingness to invest in FDRs, but he was misguided and was told that he could invest the money with OPs No.1&2 and they are having alliance with the bank.  The said investment is just like investment in FDRs in the bank and is free from all kind of market risks.  OPs also said that amount invested should be for 15 months to get maximum rate of interest.  At this, complainant was ready to invest amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with OPs No.1&2.  The employees took the signatures of complainant on some forms by saying that these are for the purpose of withdrawing the money from the account of the complainant to invest the same with Ops No.1&2.   The complainant was not handed over any document at the time of investment and he was told that amount of investment alongwith interest would be credited in his account after the expiry of period of 15 months.  It is further averred that after the expiry of said 15 months, complainant went to the bank to make enquiry about the investment he made, but he was handed over two policy documents one bearing No.865993836 and second policy bearing No.865993844. The complainant was shocked to know that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was invested by OPs in two different policies and they have misused his money.  OPs after withdrawing one more premium from the account of the complainant paid the same towards these two policies on 23.03.2013 and 08.04.2013.  Thereafter, complainant asked the OPs to give statement of account of his saving account.  Then, he requested the OPs to cancel the said policies, but the OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant.  Therefore, it is prayed that amount of Rs.4,00,000/- alongwith interest@15% P.A. alongwith compensation/damages for deficiency in service and on account of loss suffered by complainant amounting to Rs.15,000/- and litigation expenses amounting to Rs.10,000/- be directed to be paid to the complainant by Ops.    

3.       Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs.  Written statement on behalf of OP No.3 has been filed.  Preliminary objections have been taken that complaint is not maintainable and complaint discloses no cause of action.  On merits, it is submitted that complainant is having joint account with the answering OP.  It also submitted that replying OP prepared a bank draft at the instructions of the complainant and nothing more was done by them.  There is no fault in the bank functioning in any manner.  It is submitted that the complainant never contacted the bank officials in this regard.   Rest of averments made in the complaint are empathically denied.

4.       Despite repeated adjournments, the OPs No.1&2 failed to file written statement.

5.       In support of their version, the parties have tendered documentary evidence.  Learned counsel for complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith photocopies of documents i.e. statement of account of complainant Ex.C-1, original policy document Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3, certified copy of order dated 06.08.2015 Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.

6.       On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs No.1&2 has failed to produce any documentary evidence despite repeated adjournments.   Counsel for OP No.3 also tendered in evidence affidavit of Gurmeet Singh, Manager of Axis Bank, Nawanshahr Ex.OP3/A, statement of account Ex.OP3/1, ECS Mandate Ex.OP3/2 and closed the evidence.

7.       Written arguments on behalf of OPs No.1&2 have been filed.  We have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

8.       The learned counsel for the complainants argued that complainant is having saving bank account with the OP No.3 and the complainant showed his willingness to the officials of the OP No.3 to invest his money in the FDRs.  Further, it is argued that in the year 2012, complainant invested Rs.2,00,000/- in fixed deposit and he was told by the OPs that his invested amount will get 15% interest after expiry of period of investment and investment is free from market risks, but when he approached the OPs after the said period to get back the promised amount, he was told that bank official has invested his money in two insurance policies.  Thus, the OPs have adopted the unfair trade practice.  

9.       On the other hand, counsel for the OPs argued that proposal form duly filled and signed by the complainant was submitted, wherein the complainant provided details for taking up the policy including premium paying terms and policy benefit period and he has full knowledge that he had taken life insurance policies.

10.     We are of the considered opinion that on the basis of proposal form and the declaration made thereunder, the OPs issued the insurance policies with the commencement date of 14.03.2012 and 16.03.2012 and on perusal of proposal forms, we find that proposal forms attached with Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 are signed by the complainant.  By simply alleging that he deposited the said amount in FDRs and would get interest @15% P.A. at the end of 15 months will not serve the desired purpose.  The documents of the OPs are unchallenged and unshattered. 

11.     Ex.OP3/2 is the ECS mandate form, which was also signed by the complainant itself.  Meaning thereby that complainant was well aware about the said insurance policies.  It is submitted by the OPs in written arguments that as per IRDA Regulation 2002, the policy terms and conditions specifically provides for a free look period of 15 days, during which period the policyholder is entitled to review the policy terms and conditions and request for a cancellation, if dissatisfied with the same.  We find that the complainant never raised any question regarding the said policy within that period.  Raising question of the policy after three years proves fatal to him. Thus, the complainant cannot wriggle out of the valid contract between him and the OPs. So, the claim for the refund of the amount deposited by the complainant under the terms of the policy is unsustainable in the eye of law.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for surrender value.

12.     However, the complainant is held entitled to surrender value as per IRDA Regulations 2013, which came into force on 18.02.2013.  But payment of the same can be made on completion of lock-in period i.e. of five years of the said policy as envisaged by Regulation-15 of the aforesaid Regulation.  The case of the complainant is squarely covered under aforesaid regulation and the period of five years is to come to an end in March 2017 in both the insurance policies.  The relief in this respect is not barred by limitation because period of claiming the same is yet to arrive.

13.     In the light of our above observations and findings, the complaint filed by complainant – Manmohan Singh Banvet stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.           

14.     Let copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated:  10.09.2015

 

 

(Sudha Sharma)                                        (G.K. Dhir)

Member                                                               President