District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. .226/2021.
Date of Institution:13.04.2021.
Date of Order:12.06.2023.
Devanand Singh, Advocate aged about 50 years, Chamber No. 432, Lawyer’s chamber Building, District & Session Courts, Sector-12, Faridabad, Haryana, Aadhaar No. 4660 3501 3419.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Ist floor, FF-6 to FF-9, Sewa Grand Mall, 12/4 Main Mathura Road, NH2, Faridabad, Haryana – 121003 through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.
2. M/s. Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd., having corporate office: 3rd, 11th and 12th floor, DLF Square Building, Jacaranda Marg, DLF City Phase II, Gurugram (Haryana) – 122002 through its Managing Director/Director.
3. M/s. Policy Bazaar Insurance Web Aggregator Private Limited, Regd. Office: Plot No. 119, Sector-44, Gurugram, Haryana – 122001 through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory.
…Opposite parties
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Complainant in person.
Sh. Satish Acharya. counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 & 2.
Sh. Yashpal Yadav, counsel for opposite party No.3.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that in the month of April, 2019 the complainant had opted an insurance plan in the name of his minor daughter Aastha Anand Singh from opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.3 and his agent had described some benefit of that policy. The monthly installment was fixed at Rs.3000/- per month and accordingly the opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 had issued insurance policy No. 615871894. The complainant was regularly paying the installment premium of Rs.3000/- per month till November 2019 and paid a monthly installments but after paying the installment of November 2019, one official of the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 made telephonic call to the complainant and asked that “do you know your plan and whether your agent was contacting or not”. The official also informed to the complainant that his plan was ULIP plan but at the time of opting the insurance plan the agent of the opposite parties had not disclosed about the ULIP plan. The official had also introduced himself as governing body Mr. Vipin Sharma and told the complainant that whether the policy holder would get even the amount, which the complainant deposited after the amount of maturity also he added an example of a policy holder who got only Rs.50/- after depositing 5 lakh in ten years. After same day the complainant informed to the opposite parties to discontinue the policy and asked to refund the deposited amount alongwith interest. But after passing a lot of time no any amount had been refunded to the complainant. On 20.01.2020 the complainant had also sent email to the opposite parties and disclosed all the facts and requested to refund the deposited amount alongwith interest but the opposite parties neither refunded any amount nor gave any reply to the complainant. The complainant sent legal notice dated 27.01.2021 to the opposite parties through registered post but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) refund the deposited amount of Rs.24,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of depositing till its realization to the complainant.
b) pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission. Deems fit and proper may also be awarded in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
2. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant was an practicing Advocate and highly qualified. He was interested to investment in insurance sector, with intend to investment he step in branch to purchase some policies. It was further submitted that the complainant had purchased the above said policies with his own sweet would and without any pressure after going through the different policy plans of the opposite party and also after going through the terms and conditions of the aforesaid policy He purchased this policy bearing No. 615871894 proposal dated 09.04.2019 and policy dated 12.04.2019 for sum assured Rs.3,60,000/- of premium amount received Rs.3000/- PM from 12.04.2019 to 12.11.2019 the total amount received Rs.24,000/- The said policy purchased by the complainant voluntary for investment purpose. Despite of it complainant moved this complaint after two years from the date of issuing policies. Even then, if he was not satisfied with the terms and conditions he could have applied written request for the cancellation of the policy within the free look period i.e 15 days from the date of receipt of this policy, as all the policy document were delivered to him. However, the complainant refrained from applying for cancellation of the policy within the free look period. The complainant had signed a declaration in the proposal from thereof and the terms and conditions of the plan had applied for the same. It was pertinent to note that upon giving consent only they processed the said complainant and issue the said policy to the complainant and as such the complainant was stopped challenging the terms and conditions of the concluded contract. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3 Opposite party No.3 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.3 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant bought an insurance policy for his daughter bearing insurance policy No. 615871894. At the time of purchasing the said policy, the opposite party, through its agent provided all the required information about the policy to the complainant and that the terms and conditions with respect to the lock-in period was also explained to the complainant. Further, it was pertinent to mention that the abovementioned policy document consists of free look period clause where the insured could have cancelled the policy under a certain timeline. As per the applicable insurance laws in India, the right to take the decision with respect to approving or rejecting or cancelling the claim or reimbursement or availing of any service as stated in the terms of policy wa stat of the insurer that the opposite party N.3 was an insurance intermediary acting as a mere facilitator through its website, for providing insurance plans of various insurers in India. Opposite party No.3 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. with the prayer to: a) refund the deposited amount of Rs.24,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of depositing till its realization to the complainant. b) pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission. Deems fit and proper may also be awarded in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW-1/A –a affidavit of Devanand Singh, Ex.C-1 - policy,, Ex.C-2 – statement of account, Ex.C-3 – email dated Jan.23,2021, Ex.C-4 –legal notice, Ex.C-5 to C-7 – postal receipts
On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties Nos1 & 2 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Preeti Singh working as Senior Associate (Operations) with Max Life Insurance Company Ltd. Having office at 11th & 12th floor, DLF Square, Jacaranda Marg, DLF City, Phase-II, Gurugram.
As per evidence of opposite party NO.3, Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Rohit Kumar, authorized signatory of Policy Bazar Insurance Brokers Private Limited, Ex.R-1 – letter of authority, Ex.R-2 – Legal and Admin Policies, Ex.R-3 – letter dated 12.4.2019.
7. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that in this case date of issuance of policy is 12.04.2019 and the date of filing of complaint is 13.04.2021. The difference of issuance of policy and date of filing the complaint is 2 years.
8. Keeping in view of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is disposed off with the direction to opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 to deduct the 25% as administrative charges from the paid amount and refund the remaining amount to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 are also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on12.06.2023: (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
