Punjab

Sangrur

CC/238/2015

Lakhwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Max New York - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rahul Sharma

18 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    238

                                                Instituted on:      27.04.2015

                                                Decided on:       18.11.2015

 

Lakhwinder Singh son of Avtar Singh, resident of Village Bhullerheri, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Chhoti Baradari, Patiala through its Branch Manager.

2.     Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 11^th and 12^th Floor, DLF Square, JACARANDA MARG, DLF City, Phase II, Gurgaon 122 002 (HRY) through its Managing Director.

3.     AXIS Bank Limited, Ground Floor, Dhuri Pind Road, Dhuri through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate.

For OPs No.1&2        :       Shri Ashish Goyal, Advocate.

For OP No.3              :       Shri Bhushan Garg, Advocate.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Lakhwinder Singh, 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 the complainant availed the services of OP number 1 and 2 through agent of OP number 3 by getting a policy/FDR of single premium bearing number 873328843 on 11.8.2013 of Rs.25,000/- for a term of five years. The agent of the OP got the signatures of the complainant on some papers and later on received the policy from the OPs.  It is further averred that the FDR was to mature on 11.8.2017. It is further averred that for the last 3 and 4 months, the OPs number 1 and 2 are repeatedly calling upon the complainant to deposit further premium of the policy, but the complainant tried to explain them about the single insurance policy, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to cancel the policy and further to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till realisation and also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OPs number 1 and 2, it is stated that the complainant submitted his duly signed proposal form after fully understanding and deliberating upon the terms and conditions of the policy concerned and only thereafter the policy in question was issued.  It is stated that the complainant does not fall under the purview and jurisdiction of this Forum as the mere reading of the complaint filed by the complainant makes it very clear that the complaint was filed for the recovery of the amount. It is stated further that the complainant filed the proposal form number 11.8.2012 and as such thereafter the policy in question was issued on 11.8.2012 which was despatched to the complainant on 23.8.2012.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant had purchased the policy in question at his own and opted for Max Life Gain Plus 20 year 6 pay, whereby the complainant was to deposit Rs.24,219.88 on annual basis as premium for the sum assured of Rs.1,85,690/-.   It is denied that the agent of the OPs ever told the complainant that the policy is a single premium policy and the amount will be doubled in five years.   The other allegations levelled in the complaint by the complainant have also been denied.  Any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and the same is also barred by time.  On merits, it has been denied that the complainant get the policy for FDR of Rs.25,000/- for a term of five years. It is also denied that OP number 3 got the signatures of the complainant on the blank proforma. It is stated that the complainant himself approached the OPs for purchase of Max Life Gain Plus 20 participating plan in question, which was issued to him with an annual premium payable for the period of six years. It is stated that the complainant has got no right to get the refund of the amount. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied and lastly OP number 3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit. The learned counsel for OPs number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 affidavit, Ex.OP1&2/2 copy of cover note, Ex.OP1&2/3 copy of policy. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.Op3/1 affidavit and Ex.OP3/2 CD and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that he purchased the policy/FDR for Rs.25,000/- from OP number 3 on 11.8.2012 which was to be double in a period of five years, but the OP number 3 issued a policy against which the premium was to be paid annually, as such, has sought refund of the amount of Rs.25,000/- so deposited by the complainant with the OPs.  On the other hand, the stand of OPs number 1 and 2 is that the complainant submitted the proposal form bearing number 873328843 on 11.8.2012 for issuance of the policy by opting the plan Max Life Gain Plus 20 yr 6 pay plan against which he deposited Rs.24,219.88 with the assured sum of Rs.1,85,690/-, as is evident from the copy of proposal form Annexure I, which clearly shows that the said proposal form was duly signed by the complainant and a photograph of his also pasted thereon.  Further Annexure R-2 is the copy of letter dated 22.8.2012 having the subject ‘welcome to Max Life Insurance family’ and a bare perusal of it clearly shows that the complainant was having an option to return the policy in question within a  period of 15 days from the date of receipt, but the complainant even did not opt to that option and kept the policy in question with it meaning thereby he was agreed with the policy.  In this case, it is not the case of the complainant that he did not receive the policy document from the OPs. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant has himself mentioned in the complaint as well as in the affidavit Ex.C-1 about the issuance of the policy in question in his favour by the OPs. Ex.OP1&2/2 is the copy of proposal form which clearly shows that the same was duly signed by the complainant for getting the policy in question. Further a bare perusal of the affidavit of Amit Sharma, Deputy Manager of OP number 3 has clearly mentioned that the complainant himself approached to purchase Max Life Gain Plus 20 participating plan in question, which was issued to him with an annual premium payable for the period of six years.  Moreover, the complainant has not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to show that he ever purchased FDR of five years from the OPs or that he had applied for issuance of the FDR. The learned counsel for the Ops has cited Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and another versus K.S.Eshwarappa and others 2015(3) CPJ 56 (NC), wherein it has been held that the OPs are not liable to cancel the policy if the complainant has himself opted for the policy for six years, more so when he has not availed the free look period for cancellation of the policy.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint carries no force and the same deserves dismissal.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the case and accordingly the complaint is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                November 18, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member