Haryana

Panchkula

cc/329/2016

GAURAV SIKRI - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

24 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.

Consumer Complaint No	:	329 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	16.12.2016
Date of Decision	:	24.10.2017

Gaurav Sikri aged 32 years son of Sh. Chander Dev Sikri, R/o House No.1448, Sector, 11, Panchkula, Tehsil and Distt. Panchkula.

                                                                             ….Complainant

Versus

1. Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Plot No.90-A, Sector 18 Gurgaon-122015, through its Regional Manager.
2. Max  Life Insurance Company Ltd. SCO No.48, 2^nd Floor, Sector 11, Panchkula through its Branch Manager.
3. AXIS Bank Ltd, SCO No.916, Pocket No.6, Shimla Road, Manimajra, UT Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

                                                                   ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:                      Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

                                       Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                               Mr.Jagmohan Singh, Member.       

 

For the Parties:          Mr. Lavish Arora, Advocate, for the complainant. 

                               Mr. Nitesh Singh, Advocate, for the Ops No.1 and 2.

                                Mr. Sumnnender Badhrahan, Adv. for OP No.3.        

ORDER

DHARAMPAL, PRESIDENT

                 The present complaint has been filed by Gaurav Sikri U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against  Max Life Insurance Company Ltd. and others, Opposite parties.

2.              It is stated in the complaint that complainant is having saving bank account bearing number 911010033594958 with OP No-3. The representative of the OP No-3  represented the complainant that the OP No-3 having tie-up with OPs No-1 and 2 in the insurance sector and advised him for the insurance plan of their policy namely Traditional Participating Endowment Insurance plan and applicant has to pay Rs.25,916/- per year for a period of 10 years. The OPs No-1 and 2 insure the guaranteed sum insured on the death of a person and on the maturity of value, a fixed  amount alongwith  other bonus etc. would be paid by the company. The complainant has paid Rs.25,463/- for the said policy through OP No-3 and the premium amount has been deducted by the OP No-3 from the saving account of complainant and OPs No-1 and 2 issued a policy 265674341 which was received from OPs No-1 and 2 on the address of complainant, commencing from 15-03-2017. It is further stated that in the month of Sepember,2016, complainant has received a message on his mobile that an amount of Rs.25,916.65 ps has been deposited in his account. In order to enquire about the amount, it has come to the notice of complainant that policy namely Traditional Participating Endowment Insurance plan has been cancelled by the OPs No-1 and 2 through OP No-3 and the premium amount has been refunded.

3.             It has been further stated that OPs in collusion with each other have hatched a conspiracy to cheat and play fraud with the innocent customers as the OPs have firstly charged the handsome amount from the complainant and after issuing policy to the complainant further cancelled the same without his consent and any prior notice or information to the complainant. The ops have used the amount of premium of policy about six month and gained handsome amount by investing the same in their business. This act and conduct of the ops is a clear cut deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of ops and they are liable to pay compensation for great mental agony and harassment on the part of ops. The complainant got served legal notice upon the Ops, but they did not pay any heed. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops and as such, the present complaint was moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainant for causing inconvenience, mental pain, agony, suffering to the complainant for his no fault and for cancelling the insurance policy of the complainant without any notice and information to the complainant; Rs. 11,000/- as cost of litigation.

4.              Upon notice, OPs appeared and contested the complaint by filing separate replies. OPs No.1 and 2 in their reply has taken preliminary objections such as complaint of the complainant is time barred; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has not come in the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts from this Forum etc.  On 15.3.2016, the Ops received filled proposal form vide policy No.265674341. On 21.11.2016, policy cancellation communication letter sent to the complainant. On 22.11.2016, legal notice received regarding cancellation of the policy. On 8.11.2016, legal notice was replied.  In fact complainant had purchased the insurance policy namely Max Life Gain Premium 20 years 10 pay by submitting the proposal form No-265674341 which was duly singed by the complainant after proper examination and verification. Further submitted that while following the procedure by the op No-1 and 2, a verification welcome call was made by the OPs, which was incomplete, on the complainant ends and the same was not tallying with information provided by the complainant in the policy documents and as such the policy was cancelled and the amount of Rs.25916.65/- was refunded to the complainant without any deduction.  Other allegations leveled in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

5.             OP No-3 in its reply has taken many preliminary objections such as territorial jurisdiction, non-joinder, misjoinder, maintainability and concealment of material facts from this Forum etc. It has been further submitted that there is no deficiency on its part because OP No-3 cannot carry on “insurance business” as per the provision of Banking Regulations Act-1949. The op no-3 is neither proper nor necessary party in the present complaint and liable to be dismissed the same against the op No-3 bank on this ground. Further stated that the role of op No-3 is only of facilitator/corporate agent and actual insurance is issued by the op No- 2. In fact the complainant was keenly interested for obtaining the insurance policy of Max Life Insurance Company and since in view of corporate agency agreement between the op No-1 and op No-3, op No-3 is only a corporate agent/facilitator and on the instruction and at the request of the complainant, the op No-3 obtained the duly signed form alongwith premium from the complainant for completion of documentation formalities and forwarded the same to the OPs No-1 and 2.  After the handing over the complete set of documents and premium of the policy to the OPs No-1 and 2, the OP No-3 was not concerned/responsible in any manner pertaining to the application and or issuance of insurance policy solely rests with the OPs No-1 and 2, therefore, there is no carelessness and unfair trade practice on the part of Op No.3. The complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against the Op No.3 because the present disputes is between the Ops no-1, 2 and complainant. Other allegations levelled in the complaint are vehemently denied and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made in the interest of justice.

6.             In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure C-A and documents Annexure C-1 to C-7 and has closed the evidence. On the other hand, the OPs No.1 and 2 have tendered affidavit Annexure RW1-A along with documents Annexure R1-1 to R1-7 and the Op No.3 has tendered affidavit Annexure RW3/A and thereafter closed the evidence.

 7.            We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

8.             Admittedly, the complainant having a saving account bearing No. 911010033594958  with the OP  No.3 (Axis Bank). There is a corporate agency agreement between the OP No.1 and OP No.3. The Axis Bank (OP No.3) obtained the duly signed form along with premium from the complainant for completion of documentation formalities and forwarded the same to the OPs No.1 and 2 for completion of further formalities and/or acceptance  of the application form and/or issuance of insurance policy by Ops No.1 and 2. On 15.3.2016, the Ops No.1 and 2 received filled proposal form (Annexure R1/1) and send the letter dated nil (Annexure R-1/4), which reads as under:-

“Dear Gaurav,

Greetings from Max Life Insurance

We are pleased to acknowledge the receipt of your payment of Rs. 25,916.65 from your Axis Bank account, forwards initial payment for the proposal no.265674341 for Max Life Life Gain Premier.

We thank you for choosing Max Life Insurance as your Life Insurance Partner. We look forward to serving you and provide the best of services

Yours sincerely,

Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

Note:

• The receipt of the complete proposal form and the initial payment made by you, does not create any obligation on us to underwrite the risk. We will not be liable till the time we have underwritten the risk and issued the policy.

 

• This is only an interim confirmation and not a receipt. The final receipt will be issued by Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Along with the policy document.

 

• The benefits if any under the Income Tax Act, 1961 would be applicable only after the Policy is issued. We request you to please consult with your tax consultant for more information.”

9.             The insurance policy No.255674341 (Annexure C-1) was issued by the Ops No. 1 and 2 on 2.4.2016. The policy was enforced w.e.f 15.3.2016 after submitting the duly signed proposal form by the complainant and maturity date of the policy was fixed for 15, March, 2036. The premium payment term was ten years and guaranteed maturity was received of Rs. 2,89,904/-.

10.            The complainant alleged that in the month of September, 2016, the complainant received a message on his mobile that amount of Rs. 25,916.65/- has been deposited in his account. Upon this, the complainant inquired into and on inquiry, the Ops NO.1 and 2 told the complainant that the policy issued through the Opposite Party NO.3 has been cancelled and amount has been refunded to his account. The complainant has further alleged that he has not applied for cancellation of the said policy and the Ops NO.1 and 2 have not issued any prior notice or  information before cancellation of policy.

11.            On the other hand, the Ops NO.1 and 2 in para-7 of their written statement has mentioned that “the policy was cancelled due to the reason that the complainant was not co-operative/providing the information to the Tele Caller of the Ops NO.1 and 2, who had made the call for the verification of information. The last call was attended on 11.7.2016 at about 2:40 p.m. on the contact No.9915777711 for the policy No.265674341, upon the call by the Tele Caller, the complainant had again not cooperated and had not provided the information as required in the proposal form and as such under the compelled circumstances, the policy of the complainant was cancelled”. However, the learned counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2 has failed to show any such condition in the proposal form which required the verification after issuance of insurance policy. In the letter dated nil (Annexure R1/4), the Ops NO.1 and 2 have mentioned a note that “the receipt of the complete proposal form and the initial payment made by you, does not create any obligation on the OP NO.1 and 2  to underwrite the risk. They will not be liable till the time they have underwritten the risk and issued the policy.  In their letter dated 8.11.2016, the Ops NO.1 and 2 have mentioned that telephonic verification with was done many times. All times, the complainant did not cooperate with the tele caller.  The last call attempted on July 11, 2016 at 02:44 p.m dialed on contact No. 9915777711 policy no. 265674341 was cancelled. Premium received amount Rs. 25,916.65/- has been refunded through NEFT. As the complainant could not be contacted. However, the complainant can reapply for  a policy. The Ops NO.1 and 2 in their communication Annexure R1/7 have mentioned that the amount refunded by NEFT on 16.9.2016 and it has also been mentioned that they attempted many welcome calls. This customer was arrogant and did misbehave on call with caller all time. But the Ops have failed to place on record any affidavit of tele caller in this regard. From the above, it is clear that Ops NO.1 and 2 tried to justify their illegal action.

12.                    On the other hand, the OP NO.3 in paras NO.5 and 6 of their written statement on merit has stated that they took the matter with the Ops NO.1 and 2 and gathered  the information from the Ops NO.1 and 2 that the policy in question was cancelled on the request of the complainant to the Ops NO.1 and 2. From the above, it is clear that the stand taken by the OPs NO.1 and 2 is contrary and not supported with the cogent evidence.

13.                    From the above it is clear that the Ops NO.1 and 2 have cancelled the insurance policy issued by them in favour of complainant without any valid ground and the action taken by the Ops NO.1 and 2 amounts to unfair trade practice on their part. However, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.3 as they have only receipt the proposal form from the complainant and sent the same to Ops NO.1 and 2. Upon this the policy in question was issued  in favour of complainant. Hence the complaint qua OP NO.3 is hereby dismissed. The ops no.1 and 2 are directed:-

1. To pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
2. To pay an amount of Rs. 11,000/- as cost of litigation.

Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order failing which to pay the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till realization. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

24.10.2017          JAGMOHAN SING      ANITA KAPOOR       DHARAM PAL

                         MEMBER                  MEMBER               PRESIDENT

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                        DHARAM PAL

                                        President