DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

A.S. Badwal son of S. Atma Singh, R/o H.No. 741, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh.

                                                        ---Complainant.

V E R S U S

[1]    M/s Bharti AXA Life Insurance Co., SCO No. 28-29-30, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh.

[2]    Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sales Manager, C/o M/s Bharti AXA Life Insurance Co., SCO No. 28-29-30, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh.

---- Opposite Parties 

BEFORE:          SH. LAKHMAN SHARMA                          PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                        MEMBER

                    SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU                              MEMBER

Argued By:   Complainant in person.

                                Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the OPs.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1]             Complainant has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the Complainant is a retired Gazetted Officer from the DRDO, Govt. of India. (Ministry of Defense), maintaining his family of his wife and two unmarried sons on meager amount of pension received from the G.O.I. and without any other source of income.  That on being approached by one Sh. A.K. Sharma, Sales Manager, who narrated the terms & conditions and the benefits of the insurance policy and invited the Complainant to invest money with the Opposite Party No.1. The two benefits as disclosed by Sh. A.K. Sharma, Opposite Party No. 2 are as under:-

            [a]            Bonus @ 25% of the 1^st premium shall be made.

[b]        The premium amount for 3 consecutive years received interest @ 10% p.a. shall be paid.           

2]             Believing the Opposite Party No. 1 being a genuine company, Complainant invested Rs.25,000/- vide Cheque No. 462470, dated 15.2.2010, payable at SBI, Sector 41, Chandigarh from his wife’s account. The receipt of the said Cheque, issued by Opposite Party No. 2 is at Annexure C-1.

3]             The Complainant claims that after a week’s time the Complainant received Policy No. 500-5081061 from Bombay office of the Opposite Parties on 18.2.2010 through courier. It was in the name of his wife and the Complainant was considered as Proposer.

4]             After carefully reading the policy document, the Complainant found nothing, which was explained by Opposite Party No. 2. Finding the policy document unfavourable and contrary to the benefit explained by Opposite Party No. 2, the Complainant decided to get the policy cancelled. On 1.3.2011, Complainant had a talk on the helpline number 1800-425-1350 at Bombay, within the free look period of fifteen days from the date of issue of the policy document. The Bombay office advised the Complainant to write down one cancellation application on behalf of his wife duly signed by the policy holder and to hand over the same at their Branch Office at Chandigarh. On 2.3.2011, Complainant handed over the application for cancellation along with policy document to the concerned person in the Branch Office, who took the documents inside the office. The Complainant waited till 5.00 P.M. on 2.3.2010 at the Reception counter to get the receipt of the cancellation of the Policy, but nobody turned up. On being asked the person manning the Reception Counter, informed him that the documents has been received and the amount of premium will be refunded within next fifteen days, by way of Cheque.

5]             The Complainant claims that after having waited for one month, he again went to the office of Opposite Party No. 1 to get the refund, but the Branch Incharge asked him to come on some other day. Thereafter, Complainant claims to have visited the office in the month of April, May, June & July, 2010 to get the refund, but nothing happened. Ultimately, the Branch Sales Manager (A.K. Sharma) left the service of Opposite Party No.1.

6]             The Complainant claims to have given different applications on 30.8.2010, 17.10.2010, 20.10.2010, 12.11.2010 and 23.12.2010 to the Branch Office for refund. These applications are at Annexure C-1 to C-5.

7]             The Complainant claims that despite his best efforts, the Opposite Party No. 1 failed to refund the amount, till date, instead they have started asking for the premium of 3 years i.e. Rs.25,000/-  payable half yearly and on such payment, the policy document taken by Mr. A.K. Sharma, Opposite Party No.1 will renew it by allotting new number and the same would be delivered to him in a short period. It was also mentioned that in failure to do the same, the 1^st premium of Rs.25,000/- will be forfeited and as the Complainant does not have any acknowledgement letter issued on behalf of the company, nor any policy document. In such circumstances he would not be entitled for any claim. The Complainant claims that as Opposite Party No. 2 has now left the job of Opposite Party No.1, and the whereabouts of Opposite Party No.2 are known only to Opposite Party No.1.

8]             The Complainant claims that after waiting for more than one year, for a reply from the side of the Opposite Parties, he feels cheated by his hard earned money. The Complainant in aforesaid circumstances claims that the Opposite Parties be directed to refund amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest @24% p.a. It is further prayed that the Opposite Parties be burdened with heavy cost/ damage for causing inconvenience, playing unfair trade practice, mental agony and harassment to the Complainant.      

9]             Opposite Parties have filed their reply/version contesting the claim of the Complainant and has taken preliminary submission to the effect that the allegations of the Complainant are contrary to or are inconsistent with what is averred in the present reply. Hence the same are denied and it is claimed that there is nothing in the Complainant, which deserves to be admitted by or on behalf of the Opposite Parties for want of specific traverse. It is claimed in para 5 of the preliminary submissions that the Complainant is not insured of the company/Opposite Parties. Hence, the Complainant cannot file complaint on behalf of Complainant Mrs. Gurdeep Kaur, without being duly authorized to do the same and the complaint in present form is not maintainable qua the Opposite Parties.

10]           Further, the Opposite Parties while claiming the present complaint to be false, frivolous & vexatious and an abuse of process of law and based on cooked up false story which is contrary to the record, pray for its dismissal in limine.

11]           The Opposite Parties claiming no deficiency in service on their part as the policy document was duly delivered at the Complainant’s address on 23.2.2010 vide Blue Dart (AWB No. 107221183) which was duly received by the life insured Mrs. Gurdip Kaur and was never returned to the Opposite Parties as undelivered. The policy cancellation request received by the Opposite Parties on 1^st Sept. 2010, after a period of six months, hence, the same was out of free look period.  The Opposite Parties claim Complainant guilty of suppression of material facts and having filed the present complaint with malafide intentions.

12]           The Opposite Parties claim that the preliminary objections raised herein above with regard to the maintainability of the complaint need to be addressed at the outset and the answering Opposite Parties pray that the same be dismissed without going into the merits thereof.  

13]           On merits, the Opposite Parties have also contested the claim of the Complainant by giving a para-wise reply to all the averments of the present complaint in the same manner as per the paras of the preliminary objections. The Opposite Parties have claimed that the Complainant having failed to pay the subsequent premium amount, the policy in question is in the lapsed stage due to non-payment of renewal premium.  As the Complainant himself has failed to fulfill his contractual obligation, hence, he has forfeited his right to file this complaint. The Opposite Parties have attached copy of common proposal form (Annexure R-1), identity card of Complainant (Annexure R-2) and a reply to his application dated 1.9.2010 (Annexure R-3), in support of their claim. The Opposite Parties claiming no deficiency in service on their part pray for the dismissal of the present complaint and at the same time refute the claim of the Complainant of his entitlement of relief of compensation. 

14]           Parties led their respective evidences.

15]           Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Parties, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the Complainant in person and ld. Counsel for the Opposite Parties, we have come to the following conclusions.

16]           In the light of strong objections of the Opposite Parties, with regard to the maintainability of the present Complaint on the ground that the Complainant does not have the locus-standi to file the present Complaint, we feel it is important to thrash out this issue at the very first step.

17]           We have gone through the copy of statement of account of the life assured (Mrs. Gurdeep Kaur) annexed at Annexure C-2, which shows a debit entry of Rs.25,000/- on 19.2.2010, and also the Acknowledgement Receipt (Annexure C-1) of the Sales Person of the Opposite Parties bears the same detail of the Cheque which was dated as 15.2.2010. The acknowledgement is dated 11.2.2010 which is clear from the two relevant dates mentioned on the acknowledgement, as well as under the signatures of the person who has received the proposal form along with the Cheque. This document also bears the names of the complainant along with his wife’s name i.e. Gurdeep kaur. Hence in these circumstances the complainant having been considered a party then cannot be ignored now, to file this complaint.   

18]           However, the acknowledgement receipt mentions the number of the proposal form as 48778, whereas the copy of the proposal form annexed at Annexure R-1 by the Opposite Parties bears the number as 4487420, which proves that this is not the proposal form, which was handed over by the complainant, to the Agent of the Opposite Party on 11.2.2010. At the same time, the date mentioned on Pg.15 of Annexure R-1 (Proposal Form) wherein at the bottom the date mentioned at two different places is 16.2.2010. These two different dates are mentioned under the signatures of the Agent of the Opposite Party as well as Assistant Sales Manager of the Opposite Party. We doubt this aspect as how can a person receiving a document dated 16.02.2010 written by him and then signing its receipt on 11.02.2010. Even the photograph of the subscriber of this proposal form is completely a black impression and the same cannot be attributed to the life insured, the wife of the Complainant. These three aspects create doubt in our mind about its veracity and hence, we out-rightly reject the copy of the proposal form submitted along with the version by the Opposite Parties.

19]           The objections of the Opposite Parties about the Complainant not being a Consumer as well as not being an authorized agent on behalf of his wife to file the present complaint has also failed because the Complainant is very categorical in para 4 of his complaint that he was the Proposer to the said policy of his wife, and his name also figure on the receipt dated 11.02.2010. Hence, in these circumstances, the objections of the Opposite Parties are ignored.

20]           The Complainant has repeatedly mentioned the name of Shri A.K. Sharma, the Sales Manager of Opposite Party No.1 and has also impleaded him as Opposite Party No. 2 in his present complaint. While leveling the allegation of the receipt of his request for cancellation of the policy during free look period, is attributed to Sh. A.K. Sharma, in the light of this fact that as Opposite Party No. 2 Sh. A.K. Sharma who is very much a party to the dispute has failed to file an affidavit under his own signatures, rebutting the claim of the Complainant. As the allegations of the Complainant against Sh. A.K. Sharma have gone unrebutted, we feel that the averments of the Complaint have not been contested on this particular aspect by Opposite Party No.2.  This also amounts to admission on the part of Sh. A.K. Sharma- Opposite Party No. 2 about the allegations levelled against him.

21]           The Opposite Parties while tendering the copy of the Proposal form has failed to submit the same in original and while doing so, they should have also tendered the covering letter, as well as the copy of the insurance policy, which was issued in the name of Mrs. Gurdeep Kaur wife of the Complainant, when they preferred to file their reply. These three documents are considered important as per Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests) Regulations, 2002 guidelines. It is also important to visit the Paragraph of verification of the affidavit of Mr. Sameer Bhatnagar, AVP (Legal) of the Opposite Parties, which states that the contents of the affidavit are based on the records of the Company which he believed to be true, correct and complete. In our opinion, when the record in original was in the custody of the Opposite Parties, there was no reason for them to not to bring these documents in original while submitting their reply. At the same time, we also feel that the allegations of the Complainant are about an event that has happened in the Branch of the Opposite Parties situated at Chandigarh. The best person to reply to these allegations was the official of its Chandigarh Branch, i.e., opposite party no 2, who was privy to this event and not an official who is situated at Mumbai (Maharashtra).

22]           In the light of our above observations, we feel that the averments of the complaint are genuine. Accordingly, the present complaint succeeds against the Opposite Parties. We allow the present complaint and direct the Opposite Parties to: -

[a]      Refund Rs.25,000/- along with an interest @9% per annum, from the date of its receipt, till it is actually paid;

[b]      Pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- against compensation for causing inconvenience, mental agony & harassment;

23]           The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt; thereafter, the Opposite Parties shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on Rs.30,000/- till it is paid.

24]           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

01^st March, 2012.                                                                                     

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER