BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.852-13

Date of Institution: 26-12-2013

Date of Decision: 03-03-2015

Sunita Bala wife of Denial Masih, resident of 70/8, Mohalla Kurangarh, Bhakha Tara Singh, Ward No.8, Ajnala, District Amritsar. 

Complainant

Versus

1. Max Life Insurance Company Limited through its Managing Director and C.E.O. Rajesh Sud, 11^th  Floor DLF Square Jacaranda Marg DLF Phase-II, Gurgaon-122002.
2. Max Life Insurance, 32 Central Mall, 4^th Floor, Mall Road, Amritsar, through its Manager. 

 Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.B.S.Rajput, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Sanjay Kapoor, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Smt.Sunita Bala under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that the agent of Opposite Parties  approached the complainant and allured the complainant to get operate some policies with the Opposite Parties  and further allured that there are so many schemes framed by the Opposite Parties  and as such, the complainant will get huge  benefits by the said policies. The complainant believing upon allurement and assurance of the agent of the Opposite Party, got two insurance policies bearing Nos.873547855 and 873546931 855780888 on 9.10.2013 for a sum of Rs.25000/- each. Complainant alleges that after the perusal of the said policies, the complainant came to know that the Opposite Parties  through its agent have misguided the complainant stating that the policies of the complainant is going to be operated only for one year, but on perusal of the policy, it has come to the notice of the complainant that the Opposite Parties  have operated the said policy for a long period of 6 years. The complainant after receiving the said policies immediately applied for  refund of the said amount of the policy in question and handed over the original policy document to the Opposite Parties. But the Opposite Parties  have failed to refund the amount of premium of the policy in question despite serving of legal notice upon the Opposite Parties.   Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount of the policies in question alongwith upto date interest. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Parties  appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant is an educated person and he can well understand the terms and conditions of the policy which was admittedly received by him. It is submitted that policy in question was issued on 25.9.2012 and the complainant made complaint of misrepresentation for the first time on 17.9.2013 i.e.  after almost one year  when the second premium under the policy in question due. Upon issuance of the policy, the policy documents including Welcome letter, policy schedule-containing various charges being levied under the policy, terms and conditions of the policy and the copy of proposal form sent to the complainant at the address given in the proposal form on 8.10.2012. It is submitted that welcome letter of the policy i.e. first page of the policy itself contained information/ intimation about procedure for cancellation of the policy in case of dissatisfaction with the features of the policy.      It is further submitted that after such a long time, the complainant can not take undue advantage of his own wrong by creating false and fabricated documents. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Anand Singh Ex.OP1 and documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP11 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that that the complainant got two insurance policies bearing Nos.873547855and 873546931 855780888 on 9.10.2013 for a sum of Rs.25000/- each. Complainant alleges that the agent of the Opposite Parties  told the complainant that the policy is for one year. But when the complainant received the policy documents, she came to know that the policy is for 20 years. Then the complainant approached the Opposite Parties  for the cancellation of the policy and the refund of the amount of premium and handed over the original policy to the Opposite Parties  vide letter dated  30.10.2013 Ex.C4 which was received by the Opposite Parties  on 30.10.2013 vide receipt Ex.C2.  But the Opposite Parties  have rejected the request of the complainant vide letter dated 28.11.2013 Ex.OP11. The complainant served legal notice dated 31.10.2013, but in vain. Ld.counsel for the complainant    submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite parties is that in order to obtain the insurance policy, the complainant filled in and signed the proposal form Ex.OP3 in which it has clearly been mentioned that the policies are for 20 years, the premium paying term is 6 years, the amount of premium is Rs. 25000/- of each of the policies and frequency of premium is yearly. The policy was issued to the complainant on the basis of the aforesaid  proposal form on C2 which were dispatched to the complainant on 25.9.2012. However, the complainant applied for cancellation of the policy for the first time on 17.09.2013 i.e. after a lapse of more than one year from the date of receipt of the policy documents. Resultantly, the request of the complainant was declined vide letter dated 28.11.2013 Ex.OP11.     Ld.counsel for the opposite parties submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant in order to  get the insurance policy filled in and signed the proposal form Ex.C3 on 8.10.2012 on the basis of which, the Opposite Parties  issued two insurance policies bearing Nos.873547855 and 873546931 855780888 on 9.10.2013 for a premium sum of Rs.25000/- each.  The policy is for 20 years, the premium paying term is 6 years, the amount of premium is Rs. 25000/- each of the policies and frequency of premium is yearly. The complainant received the policy documents and then came to know that the agent of the Opposite Parties  has misguided the complainant and said agent of the Opposite Parties  told the complainant that the   policy is for one year, whereas the policy issued by the Opposite Parties  is for 20 years and premium payment term is 6 years. The complainant after receiving the said policy applied to the Opposite Parties  for the cancellation of the policy and refund of the amount of premium and handed over the policy documents to the Opposite Parties  vided receipt dated 17.09.2013. As per the record produced by the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties  delivered the policy documents to the complainant  on 25.9.2012. The complainant had option to apply for cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium amount within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of  policy documents. The Opposite Parties  have succeeded in proving that the policy documents were delivered to the complainant on 25.9.2012, but the complainant applied for cancellation of the policy for the first time on 17.9.2013 vide letter Ex.OP2  after a lapse of period of about one  year. So, the Opposite Parties  were justified in not accepting the request of the complainant as per letter dated 28.11.2013 Ex.OP11. No doubt, the complainant sent legal notice dated 31.10.2013 after the rejection of the request of the complainant for the cancellation of the policy which was properly replied by the Opposite Parties  vide letter dated 28.11.2013 Ex.OP11. Consequently we hold that complainant has failed to prove on record any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
9. Resultantly the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 03-03-2015.                                                                             

hrg