Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/90/2014

Ram Kumar S/o. MamRaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Birla sun Life Insurance Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Y.C.Tyagi

09 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR.

 

                                                     Complaint No.90 of 2014.

                                                     Date of institution: 07.02.2014.

                                                     Date of decision: 09.10.2017.

Ram Kumar aged about 50 years son of Shri Mam Raj, resident of Village Araiyanwala, Tehsil-Chhachhrauli, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                                                  …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. M/s. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., having its Branch Office at SCO-133, IInd Floor, Sector-17, near Mini Secretariat, HUDA, Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar, Haryana through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.
2. M/s. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., having its Regd. Office at one India Bulls Centre, Tower-1, 15^th & 16^th Floor, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Senapati Bapawt Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013 through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
3. Manpreet Singh-Authorized Agent of M/s. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., having its office at SCO-133, IInd Floor, Sector-17, near Mini Secretariat, HUDA, Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar, Phone No.9416181174.  

 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. SATPAL, PRESIDENT

                    SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                    SMT.VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. Y.C.Tyagi, Advocate, for complainant.   

                  Sh. Sumit Gupta, Advocate for the OPs.No.1 & 2.

                  Defence of Op No.3 was struck off vide order dt. 07.01.2015.

 

                ORDER

         

(SATPAL, PRESIDENT)

1.            The complainant-Ram Kumar has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, as amended up to date (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs). 

2.             Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the Op No.2 is doing the business of life insurance and the Op No.1 is working on behalf of Op No.2 being its branch and used to collect money from the general public/interested customers through its agents/servants.  It is alleged that in the month of January, 2010 the complainant also became in contact of one Tajinder Singh-agent of the Op No.1 having his Agent Code No.AJ5605, who promoted the benefits of life insurance plans introduced by the Op No.1 & 2 and that agent allured the complainant to get the benefit of insurance and investment plans provided by the Op No.1.  It is further alleged that on 14.01.2010, the complainant obtained the insurance policy of the Op No.1 for which the application form No.A-32752642 was filled-up by the agent of Op No.1 and the Ops issued insurance policy No.003799743 on 15.01.2010 in the name of complainant.  It is further alleged that the above-said insurance policy was guaranteed by the Op No.1-company for the maturity benefits of Rs.1,44,000/- and it was told by the agent of Op No.1 that the amount paid by the complainant will be double by the Op No.1 within five years.  It is further alleged that at the time of issuance of above-said policy to the complainant, the officials of Op No.1 received a sum of Rs.25,224/- as cash from the complainant on 14.01.2010 on account of Ist premium instalment of above-said policy.  As per terms and conditions of repayment of monitory benefits on the insurance-cum-investment plan, the Ops made a little payment of Rs.1421/- to the complainant.  In the next year, the Op No.1 demanded a sum of Rs.24,870/- from the complainant on account of 2^nd instalment of premium but did not issue any monitory benefits to the complainant and the complainant deposited the premium of 2^nd instalment on 25.01.2011 and then in the next year again, he deposited the premium of 3^rd instalment i.e. Rs.24,870/- on 19.01.2012 but no further payment of monitory benefits have been provided by the Ops to the complainant.  It is further alleged that keeping in view the irresponsible attitude of the Ops, the complainant decided to get cancel the policy in question but the Ops did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to refund the amount of Rs.74,964/- received by them as premium against policy No.003799743 dt. 15.01.2010 alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony alongwith Rs.7500/- as litigation charges.  Hence, this complaint.

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared.  The Ops No.1 & 2 filed their joint written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; that the complainant has concealed the fact that he himself purchased the policy in question, wherein all the terms and conditions were explained to him at the time of taking the policy; that the complainant himself approached the officials and accordingly, the policy in question was issued and if the policy-holder/applicant was not satisfied with the plan, then he had every right to seek cancellation of his policy within free look-in-period of 15 days from the date of receipt of policy but the complainant never sought cancellation of policy during the said free look in period; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the pleas raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.               The defence of Op No.3 was struck off vide order dt. 07.01.2015 as neither the Op No.3 nor anyone filed the written statement after a lapse of mandatory period of 45 days from the receipt of summon by the Op No.3.

5.             The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit as Annexure-CX and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C7 and closed evidence. 

6.             On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 & 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Aakriti Manocha, Executive Legal Manager as Annexure-RW/A alongwith document Annexure-R1 and closed evidence on behalf of Ops.No.1 & 2.    

7.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant and ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 & 2 and perused the record carefully and minutely.                               

8.             Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that in the month of January, 2010 the complainant became in contact of one Tajinder Singh-agent of the Op No.1 having his Agent Code No.AJ5605, who promoted the benefits of life insurance plans introduced by the Op No.1 & 2 and that agent allured the complainant to get the benefit of insurance and investment plans provided by the Op No.1.  The complainant had obtained a Life Insurance Policy No.003799743 for a sum assured of Rs.1,44,000/-  and paid three installments of Rs.25,224/- on 14.01.2010, Rs.24,870/- on 25.01.2011 and Rs.24,870/- on 19.01.2012.  Due to urgent need of money, the complainant contacted OPs for refund /return of the amount deposited by him but in vain.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant referred the case law decided by Hon’ble National Commission in revision petition No.3134 of 2015 on 06.04.2016 titled as Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dr. Vinesh Senan., wherein the same question of law has been discussed and the Hon’ble National Commission partly allowed the complaint of the complainant directing the Op-insurance company to refund the premium amount paid by the complainant, without interest within 45 days, failing which, it will carry interest @ 12% p.a. till its realization.    

9.             Learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 argued that the policy in question cannot be cancelled and the premium deposited cannot he refunded as the request was received well outside the free look period of 15 days as per clause 6(2) of IRDA (Protection of Policy holder’s interest) Regulations 2002, The request of the complainant for refund of amount was rightly declined as per terms and conditions of policy as the request was received much outside the free look period.  Ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 & 2 also relied upon the case law cited in 1996 CPC titled as LIC Vs. Anil P. Tadkalar (NC) and IV (2006) CPJ page 239 (NC) titled as Prema & others Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd.    

10.            After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2.  From the perusal of the entire facts and circumstances mentioned in the complaint, it is clear that the complainant has moved from pillar to post to obtain /refund of the amount lying deposited by him with the OPs No.1 & 2- Insurance Company.  The complainant had invested his hard earned money with the OPs No.1 & 2-Insurance Company who have failed to disclose in its written statement that where the amount so deposited by the complainant was invested and what was the fate of this amount.  We generally see that when we go to the bank, insurance company or any other institute, there are voluminous documents which are required to be signed by the concerned person and it is also seen that every document which is got signed is not humanely possible to be gone through by the concerned person and undue benefits is taken of this situation.  Similarly, in the present case, the agent-Op No.3 misguided the complainant and sold the policy in question to the complainant on the false assurance that the amount deposited by the complainant shall become double after the expiry of 5 years and on this misrepresentation, the complainant was allured to obtain the policy in question.  The complainant has filed the present complaint on 07.02.2014 but even then the Ops No.1 & 2 till date have not disclosed before this forum that the complainant is entitled to what amount.  Even the officials of Ops No.1 & 2 did not bother to file any affidavit disclosing the paid-up value against the policy in question.  The complainant has hired the services of Ops-insurance company just to invest his hard money and the Ops-insurance company might have charged some amount on account of service charge and stamp duties etc., so, it was the duty of Ops-insurance company as-well-as their agents to provide proper and correct information to the complainant from time to time but they did not do so.  The case laws referred above by the ld. Counsel for Ops No.1 & 2 are not disputed but not helpful in the present case, whereas the case law referred by ld. Counsel for the complainant is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.          

11.            Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above and in the interest of justice and equity, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OPs No.1 & 2-Insurance Company to refund Rs.52,975/- i.e. 70% of the deposited premium amount i.e. Rs.74,964/- (after deducting 30% amount on account of office expenses, commission of agreement, stamp duty service, service charges etc.) within 30 days, failing which, it will carry interest @ 9% p.a., till its realization.  Parties are left to bear their own costs.  Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of the copy of this orders failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dated: 09.10.2017.

                                                            (SATPAL)

                                                            PRESIDENT.

 

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)         (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                          MEMBER