BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Surinder Singh Bedi son of Late Sardar Arjun Singh Bedi, H.No.77, Phase-II, Mohali, Punjab.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1]  M/s Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., 9^th Floor, Godrej Coliseum, Behind Everard Nagar Sion (E),Mumbai-400022.

2]  M/s Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., SCO No.141-142, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

                      ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                     PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL            MEMBER

DR.(MRS.) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA     MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Ish Mahajan, Counsel for complainant

          Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OPs.      

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

         The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. In short, the facts of the case are that he took an insurance policy No.01707787 from OPs with date of commencement as 09.09.2009 against the annual premium of Rs.25000/-. The complainant never opted for opening of ECS account with the Bank. It has been averred that due to unavoidable circumstances, he could not deposit the second installment which was due on 09.09.2010 and subsequently paid the same on 21.09.2010 through voucher No.70665637. The complainant was informed vide letter (Annexure C-3) that his bankers did not honour the payment from his account on account of non-existent account. Consequently, the complainant wrote letter dated 29.09.2010(Annexure C-4) to the Deputy Chief Manger of the OP-Bank to know as to why and how the necessity had arisen to issue letter (Annexure C-3). Ultimately, the complainant wrote letter dated 26.11.2010 to the Deputy Chief Manger, Policy Security of the OP and sought information in respect of failure of renewal premium collection through ECS to which OPs failed to give any reply. Thereafter, the complainant made letter dated 03.01.2011 to the Assistant Secretary, Office of Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh for redressal of his grievances. According to the complainant, he wrote various letters and sought information under RTI from the OPs but they failed to redress his grievances. According to the complainant, when the amount was deposited in cash there was no requirement of deducting the monthly charges against the ECS transaction, hence this complaint.

2.      OPs No.1 and 2  filed written statement and took some preliminary objections. On merits, the averments of the complainant made in the complaint were denied. The fact with regard to the issuance of the policy in question against the annual premium of Rs.25000/- has been admitted.  It has been denied that the complainant never opted for the ECS facility. It has been pleaded that the complainant had submitted the same along with the proposal form for payment of renewal premium. It has further been pleaded that upon receipt of the ECS mandate and copy of the blank cancelled cheque No.08836 belonging to the IDBI bank, OPs approached IDBI bank for necessary formalities for activation of the ECS facility who informed them that the a/c mentioned on the cheque  is non-existent and hence, the same could not be processed. It has been admitted that the complainant paid the second premium  in cash but it has been pleaded that if the complainant wishes to pay the premium for the remaining term of the policy through cash, the same is very well accepted. It has been pleaded that the deductions of charges is as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It has further been pleaded that the grievance of the complainant was adequately addressed and the response was sent to the complainant vide letter dated 10.02.2011 (Annexure R-2.    Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.        We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5.       It is the case of the Complainant that he had never opted for the Electronic Clearing System [ECS] facility. However, a perusal of ECS Mandate Form (Annexure R-1), placed on record by the OPs, shows that the Complainant had submitted the same, along with the Proposal Form (Annexure R-3), and photograph to facilitate the payment of renewal premium. This being so, it belies the argument raised by the Complainant that he had not opted for the said facility, especially when he himself was signatory to the same, thereby authorizing the OPs to deduct the premium amount by debiting his account, for which he had tendered a blank canceled Cheque bearing No. 008836 belonging to IDBI Bank (Annexure R-1[colly]) (at page 16). The said cheque, when presented to the IDIBI Bank, for activation of the ECS facility, it was informed by the banker that the account number mentioned on the cheque is ‘non-existent’ (Annexure C-3) and hence, the same could not be processed. Moreover, a close scrutiny of the documents Annexure R-1 and R-3 make it amply clear that the same were signed by the Complainant himself, as the signatures of the Complainant tallies with the signatures on the complaint, as well as on the verification of the complaint.

6.       The next argument raised by the Complainant is that he has deposited the second premium amount in cash also does not find favour with this Forum, simply due to the reason that the Complainant has miserably failed to produce any cogent convincing evidence to prove the same.

7.       There is no dispute about it that after thoroughly understanding the features, terms & conditions of the life insurance plan in question viz. Kotak Smart Advantage Plan, the Complainant had filled up the proposal form dated 5.9.2009 Annexure R-3 (Pg.2) and has also signed the same. Thereafter, on the basis of the information provided by him in the proposal form and the necessary supporting documents provided by him, the policy document Annexure R-5 was issued by the OP on 10.9.2009 and the same was received by the Complainant. Thus, can safely be concluded that the Complainant was aware of the various charges applicable under the policy/ contract of insurance and further the Complainant was aware of the Free Look Provision mentioned on the welcome letter sent along with the policy document which confers right on the policy holder to cancel the policy within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy document (Annexure R-5). However, the Complainant has not availed of the same and hence, he is stopped from raising such a plea at this juncture. After the expiry of the free look period, the policy terms and conditions permits surrender of the policy only after completion of 3 years [Annexure R-5 (Page 39)]; where surrender value as payable in accordance with the policy terms and conditions shall be payable on surrender of the policy. Admittedly, at present the policy in question is in lapsed condition due to non-payment of premium.

8.       In view of the above discussion, in our considered opinion, there is no merit, weight or substance in the present complaint and, therefore, the same cannot be accepted in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs. There is neither any deficiency of service, nor indulgence in any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. As such, we dismiss the complaint. However, the respective parties shall bear their own costs.

9.       Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.