Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/549/2013

Manjit Sahdev - Complainant(s)

Versus

Max New York Life Insurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bhardwaj,Adv

28 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

====

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/549/2013
Date  of  Institution	:	28/11/2013
Date   of   Decision	:	28.07.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Manjit Sahdev, R/o #5005/2, Modern Housing Complex, Mani Majra, Chandigarh.

 

Complainant

 

versus

 

(1) Max New York Life Insurance Co. Limited, SCO No.36-38, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160008, through its Branch Manager.

 

(2) Max New York Life Insurance Co. Limited, 11th Floor, DLF Square, Jacaranda Marg, DLF City, Phase-II, Gurgaon (Haryana), through its Managing Director.

 

(3) AXIS Bank, SCO 916, Manimajra, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

 

 Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. RAJAN DEWAN              PRESIDENT

                                SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU    MEMBER

          MRS. PRITI MALHOTRA     MEMBER

 

Argued By:    Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

Sh.Saurav Goel, Counsel fro Opposite Party No.3.

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

 

                                Earlier this complaint was decided vide 28.10.2014 by this Forum, against which the OPs have preferred F.A. No.388/2014 and F.A.No.394/2014 before the Hon'ble State Commission. The Hon'ble State Commission vide its order dated 28.01.2015 accepted the appeals filed by the Opposite Parties and order of this Forum was set aside and the case was remanded back with a direction grant only one reasonable opportunity, to Opposite Party NO.3 for filing vakalatnama, written reply along with evidence by way of affidavit(s) and thereafter decide the complaint afresh on merits in accordance with the provisions of law. However, the Opposite Party No.3 was also burdened with costs of  Rs.7000/-, which was paid by it to the complainant.

 

2]       As per the case, the Complainant visited the Opposite Party No.3 in Jan. 2011 where he is maintaining an account, for renewal of his FDRs worth Rs.4.50 lacs, when he was allured to purchase an insurance Policy of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 with an annual premium of Rs.9990/-. The Complainant was assured that after six years he would get life time benefits. The Policy No.827514910 was issued to the Complainant on 15.02.2011. The Complainant received the Policy on 22.02.2011 and was surprised that the Policy has been issued with premium of Rs.99,503.86P instead of Rs.9990/- (First Premium Receipt and Policy Annexure C-1 & C-2). The Complainant immediately approached the Opposite Party No.3 for knowing the reasons for issuance of said Policy, but they dilly-dallied the matter on one pretext or the other. The Complainant also gave a written request to Opposite Party No.3 on 7.3.2011, but nothing was done (Annexure C-3). The Complainant thereafter gave request to the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and also send e-mails but of no use. The Complainant received a letter dated 17.2.2012 vide which it was informed that the next premium has not been honoured by the Opposite Party No.3 (Annexure C-4).The Complainant thereafter send an e-mail to the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 regarding the mis-selling of the Policy and sought refund of his premium amount (Annexure C-5). Finally, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 vide letter dated 6.3.2012 refused to refund the amount to the Complainant on the ground of beyond 15 days free look period (Annexure C-6). Finally, the Complainant vide e-mail dated 24.6.2013, asked the Opposite Parties to refund the amount, failing which, he shall be approaching the Consumer Court. The Opposite Parties assured to resolve the matter within 7 days, but to no avail (Annexure C-7 colly), which according to the Complainant tantamounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint.

 

3]       The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in their joint reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has maintained that the Complainant had opted for the policy of his own choice and the terms & conditions were explained to him as per the policy contract. The Complainant had signed the proposal forms wherein the declaration states that he fully understands terms & conditions of the Policy. The plan details and all the other benefits and terms & conditions of the plan were explained to the Complainant at the time of proposal. It was clearly mentioned in the contract of the schedule at page No.4 that annual premium would be Rs.97,989.91P. This was also informed to the Complainant in the welcome call and the Complainant did not approach the answering Opposite Parties at any time for cancellation on grounds of mis-selling within the free look period. The request of the Complainant was rightly declined by the answering Opposite Parties as the same was beyond the policy review period of 15 days as mentioned in the Policy and as such the Complainant has no grievance against the answering Opposite Party. Answering Opposite Parties pleaded that perusal of Annexure C-5 attached by the Complainant showed that the Complainant had for the first time alleged mis-selling on 25.02.2012 after receipt of the letter dated 17.02.2012 (Ann.C-4) wherein he was informed that he has defaulted in paying his second installment as his Bank Account is closed.  Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, opposite party No. 1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

 

         The Opposite Party No.3 Bank also filed reply stating therein that it had acted only as a facilitator/referral agent to Opposite Party No.1 & 2 on being approached by the complainant to purchase policy, whereas the actual insurance is issued by the insurance company i.e. OPs No.1 & 2.  It is submitted that the complainant after understanding all the pros and cons of the product of OPs No.1 & 2, had opted for the policy of his own choice and the terms and conditions were explained to him by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 as per policy contract.  It is also submitted that the complainant himself had got prepared the demand draft of Rs.99,000/-, after getting his two FDRs matured, in favour of Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited towards the annual premium to be paid (Ann.R-1 to R-3).  It is further submitted that the complainant had signed the proposal form wherein the declaration states that he fully understand the terms & conditions of the policy.  The complainant had also signed the ECS mended form in favour of said insurance company.  It is pleaded that the complainant never approached the answering Opposite Party nor written any request as alleged and the letter attached by the complainant with the complainant does not bear any seal or signature of Opposite Party No.3. Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.  

 

4]       The Complainant also filed rejoinder by way of affidavit wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties No.1, 2 & 3 have been controverted.

 

5]      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6]      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.  

 

7]      The complainant claims to have subscribed for an insurance policy of OPs No.1 & 2 on the advice of their agent Opposite Party NO.3 and had consented to deposit an amount of Rs.9990/- for a period of 6 years to enjoy the life time benefits of the same. The complainant claims that on receipt of the policy, he immediately contacted the office of Opposite Party NO.3 through communication dated 07.3.2011 (Ann.C-3), but failed to get any positive response from their side.  Complainant is surprised of receipt of call for payment of premium in the year 2012 from the side of OPs No.1 & 2 and raised this issue by claiming that he had already intimated them about the cancellation of the policy as he had not agreed to such terms & conditions. 

 

8]      As per the complainant, the OPs denied him the benefit of free look period and failed to cancel the policy while acting on his request dated 07.3.2011, which was, according to him, within the mandatory 15 days free look period from the date of receipt of the policy at his end. 

 

9]      The OPs No.1 & 2 had claimed that they are not in the know of any such communication which was within the free look period, but they have acknowledged the letter from the side of the complainant of June, 2012, which according to them is beyond the free look period of 15 days, without mentioning the date of receipt of the letter, which according to them was beyond free look period.  While including the defence of Opposite Party No.3 with regard to the claim of the complainant about the letter dated 7.3.2011, which though addressed to them, has been denied for the reason that the complainant did not bring on record the receipt of the same by Opposite Party No.3.   

 

10]      While dealing with the issue with regard to the communication dated 07.3.2011, which the complainant had handed over to Opposite Party NO.3, which clearly indicates that the complainant does not wish to continue with the policy in question and had asked for the cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium amount.  On the face of it, it is apparent that Opposite Party No.3, to whom this letter is addressed, was the agent of Opposite Party No.1 & 2 at the time of selling of the policy, but there is no document to prove that the complainant had also authorised Opposite Party NO.3 to be either his assignee or to act as his agent for any future purpose.  The OPs NO.1 & 2 though have claimed that the policy in question was sent to the complainant at his address, but their such claim stands falsified from the document Ann.-B Page 31 of the reply, which is the copy of Airway bill of First Flight Courier Limited through which the OPs had claimed to have dispatched the policy document on 17.3.2011. This courier is addressed to the complainant at Axis Bank, which is Opposite Party NO.3 and this does not mention the residential address of the complainant.  Therefore, the claim of the complainant that the policy document was received by him when he visited the Office of Opposite Party No.3 stands proved.  In order to ascertain the beginning of 15 days free look period, has to be from the date of the policy document coming in hands of the complainant.  The claim of the complainant about the letter dated 07.3.2011 is tenable because if OPs NO.1 & 2 have appointed Opposite Party NO.3 as an agent for the delivery of the policy documents, then the receipt of cancellation of the policy at the end of Opposite Party No.3 is deemed to have been received by them within the free look period.  As after filing of the reply by Opposite Party No.3, it has nowhere explained as to in what manner the policy document delivered at its end was conveyed to the complainant and on what date the same was received by the complainant for the purpose of start of free look period, as enshrined in the policy document.

 

11]      It is an admitted case of Opposite Party No.3 that it is corporate agent of OPs NO.1 & 2 for the purpose of selling of the policies and also that all such features of the policy subscribed for by the complainant was explained to him by employees of Opposite Party No.3 as well as OPs No.1 & 2. The OPs No.1 & 2 while filing their reply have placed the same document (Ann.C-3), dated 07.3.2011, but it is unfortunate that OPs No.1 & 2 while bringing this scanned document on record, have deleted the date “7.3.2011” found printed under the signatures of the complainant in Ann.C-3.  The Opposite Party No.3 in its reply have feigned ignorance about the existence of the letter dated 7.3.2011 and having denied the same, cannot contest the claim of the complainant about its contents, rather, had there been a definite date of its acceptance in the records of Opposite Parties NO.3, then only it could argue on the contents of Ann.C-3. Even the affidavit of Mr.Rohan Uniyal, placed on record by Opposite Party No.3, does not speak anything about this document as the same is the verbatim copy of reply/version of OPs No.3. Therefore, we can safely conclude that the OPs No.1 & 2 have tried to mislead this Forum by placing on record a doctored document to use the same to their advantage.  Such an act of the OPs No.1 & 2 deserves no leniency as this document has been tendered by them along with the sworn affidavit of their officer one Ms.Shivanshi Gupta, Assistant Manager (Customer Service).  Hence, the OPs No.1 & 2 having ignored the genuine request of the complainant for cancellation of the policy, forwarded to it through Opposite Party No.3, which have admitted itself being the agent of OPs No.1 & 2, was received by them within 15 days free look period have certainly acted in a deficient manner, for which the present complaint deserves to succeed against them.

 

12]      It is also necessary to quote here that Opposite Party No.3 has categorically mentioned in its reply that there was an express authorization about the ECS mandate from the side of the complainant and has placed on record the copy of Ann.R-7, which is the Xeroxed copy of Ann.A-1, placed on record by the complainant and has been stamped by the office of Opposite Party No.3.  Unfortunately, this document on the face of it does not belonged to the complainant as the name of the complainant is Manjit Sehdev, whereas this document pertains to one Mr.Manjit Singh.  Therefore, it is not only OPs No.1 & 2, who have raised objections with regard to the document, which did not belong to their office i.e. Ann.C-3, but Opposite Party No.3 too is guilty of placing on record a document in its defence, which does not even remotely belonged to the complainant.  This is a serious offence on the part of Opposite Party No.3 to have created its defence on the basis of a document, which is not part & parcel of the case at all.  Such an act of Opposite Party No.3 should not go unaddressed and the same amounts to deficiency in service on its part and also an unfair trade practice.     

   

13]     In the light of above observations, we allow the present complaint against the OPs. The Opposite Parties are jointly & severally directed  to:-

[a] To refund Rs.99,503.86 paise to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of deposit till its actual payment.

 

[b] To pay Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and harassment; 

 

[c] To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

        The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties jointly & severally, and thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum, on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] of Para 12 above from the date of deposit till its actual payment and also on the amount mentioned in sub-para [b] of Para 12 above from the date of institution of this complaint till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/-.  

 

        The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

28^th July, 2015                          

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)                                                                   MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Om

 

 

                                                         

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.549 OF 2013

PRESENT:   None   Dated the day of 28th July, 2014

O R D E R             Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed.                     After compliance, file be consigned to record room.         (Priti Malhotra) (Rajan Dewan) (Jaswinder Singh Sidhu) Member President Member