Delhi

North East

CC/48/2021

Smt. Roopali Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s One Insure Robinhood Insurance Broker Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

15 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 48/21

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Mrs. Roopali Sharma W/o Sh. Kaushik DEB R/o 12/94, Double Storey QTR, Opposite Gurudwara Govind Garh, Shahdara, Delhi-110032		Complainant
		Versus
	1.               2.	M/s One Insure Robinhood Insurance, Broker Pvt. Ltd. B-306, Somdatta Chamber-1, 5, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 Through its Director     Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd. At:-LSC 8, Floor,B-Block Market, Sikka Chamber, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110066 Through its Director/Manager		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		23.03.21 27.03.23 15.06.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019 against M/s One Insure Robinhood Insurance broker Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party No.1) and Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd. (Opposite Party No.2).

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the believing the representations made by Opposite Party No.1 as representative of Opposite Party No.2, the Complainant had purchased a policy of Opposite Party No.2 through Opposite Party No.1 which is BSLI Vision Plan bearing no.006251289, vide client ID No. 5664674275, product unique identification No. 109N068V01, dated 25.09.13. It is stated that as per the terms of the policy, the validity of the policy was upto the age of 100 and the Complainant was to pay premium for 16 years @ Rs. 36,000.2/- paisa p.a. The Complainant opted for the payment of premium on monthly basis @ Rs.2999.99/- paisa p.m. As per the terms of the said policy, the maturity value of the said policy is Rs.12,32,000/- (approx.) together with bonus. It is further stated that since the date of the purchase of the policy i.e. on 25.09 2013, the Complainant had been making regular payment of the premium of the policy on monthly basis vide ECS. On 19.01.2016, the Complainant was informed by email that the policy has been lapsed due to non-payment of the premium and the said default was due to dishonour of ECS. On inquiry from the bank, the Complainant came to know that the said default occurred due to change in service tax and she was not informed about that. After completing all the formalities, the Complainant’s policy was revived by the Opposite Parties and revival letter dated 20.06.2016 was issued. It is further stated that in the year 2017, the Complainant received a call from Opposite Parties that the policy had lapsed due to non-payment of the premium for the last three months while the Complainant was paying the premium regularly through ECS mode regularly on monthly basis. On raising query, the Complainant was told that the said policy was declared as lapsed because the Complainant had changed the payment mode from monthly to quarterly through their website. The Complainant was also informed that the Complainant will have to pay outstanding dues for revival of the policy as per reinstatement quotation. It is averred by the Complainant that she had never opted for change in mode of payment as alleged by the Opposite Parties and she did not send any request in that regards to them. As per the Complainant, she made several requests thereafter for revival of the policy but no action was taken by the Opposite Parties. It is alleged that there was no fault or default on the part of the Complainant and the Opposite Parties declared the said policy lapsed with mala fide intention to grab the amount paid by the Complainant. It is also stated by the Complainant that the Opposite Party assured her to revive the policy subject to payment of Rs.35,556/- and the Complainant handed over two cheques as demanded by the Opposite Parties one for revival of policy and other for reinstatement of ECS service. The said cheques were allegedly encashed by the Opposite Parties but the policy was not reinstated in spite of several requests of the Complainant. On the contrary, the Opposite Parties sent a bank draft of Rs.3,184.84/- to the Complainant which was returned by the Complainant to the Opposite Party under protest. Thereafter, the Opposite Party illegally without any prior information got credited the said amount through electronic mode in the bank account of the Complainant.
2. The Complainant had also sent a legal notice to Opposite Parties through email on 19.08.2020. It is alleged that the Opposite Parties had intentionally and deliberately closed the policy of the Complainant which she had purchased to secure her future which clearly shows unfair trade practices on their part and  deficiency in services. Hence, the Complainant filed the present complaint praying for maturity amount of the policy i.e. Rs.12,32,000/- with bonus or alternatively revive /reinstate the policy in question from the date of lapse subject to previous terms and conditions and without any penalty/ extra charges and also Rs. 2,00,000/-as compensation for the inconvenience and mental torture.   
3. Notices were served on both the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 and Opposite Party No.2 entered appearance and filed their reply. Opposite Party No.1 did not enter their appearance, hence vide order dated 27.04.2022, Opposite Party No. 1 was proceeded ex parte.

 

 

Case of the Opposite Party No.2

4. The Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement. The Opposite Party No.2 has admitted the policy in question and also that Complainant had opted for monthly mode of premium payment through ECS and had paid al the premiums due up till August 2017. However, it has been contended by Opposite Party No.2 that on 26.07.2017, Complainant had placed request through website portal (online) for change of mode from monthly to quarterly and premium payment mode was changed accordingly with draw date of 25^th of every quarter. It is also submitted by Opposite Party No.2 that the Complainant was also informed that in order to activate NACH/direct debit of premium facility, the Complainant is required to comply with NACH requirements which allegedly was not complied with by the Complainant. It has also been submitted that due to non-receipts of regular premiums, said policy had lapsed as on 25.09.17 and was again reinstated on 20.06.18. It has also been contended that as per the mode change request, the quarterly premium was due in June 2018 however, as the new NACH registration request was not received by Opposite Party No.2, the extraction for debit of premium was not sent to Complainant’s bank. It is further stated by Opposite Party No.2 that on 25.09.18, Opposite Party No.2 received the request from client for change of mode from quarterly to monthly along with NACH activation and due premiums amounting to Rs. 8,889/-(premium due from June 18-Aug 18). The request was processed & policy was revived also premium payment mode was registered in records as “Monthly”. It is submitted that the mandate of payment of premium was regularly changed by the Complainant and due to that policy lapsed few times and reinstated thereafter after completing the formalities. It is also submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 refunded the payment made in excess as retrieved from the Complainant’s account due to continuance of the monthly ECS due to fault of the bank. Opposite Party No.2 has denied to have caused nay unfair trade practice and deficiency in service hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 2

5. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.2 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No.2 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

6. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.2

7. Despite being afforded sufficient time, Opposite Party No.2 failed to file their evidence by way of affidavit, hence, their defence was struck off vide order dated 12.09.2022 and Opposite Party No.2 were also proceeded Ex-parte.

Arguments & Conclusion

8. We have also perused the file including the written arguments filed on behalf of the parties and heard the Counsel of Complainant.
9. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant purchased the policy in question from Opposite Party No.2 through Opposite Party No.1 and was to pay the premium for 16 years.  The Complainant opted the payment of premium on monthly basis @ Rs. 2999.99/- per month. It is alleged that in spite of the premium being paid regularly though ECS on monthly basis, Opposite Parties declared the policy as lapsed on the ground that Complainant changed the payment mode from monthly to quarterly through their website. Thereafter, the Complainant was also informed that for revival of the said policy the Complainant shall have to pay outstanding dues as per the reinstatement quotation. It is submitted by the Complainant that she had never opted for changing mode of payment and she did not send any request for changing of mode of payment of premium of the said policy. It is alleged that after the lapse of policy, in spite of making several requests for reinstatement of the policy, the Opposite Parties have not taken any action. The Complainant alleged that the Opposite Party had intentionally and deliberately closed the policy of the Complainant by adopting unfair trade practices. Hence, the Complainant has filed the present complaint praying for reinstatement or revival of the policy in question from the date of lapse or alternatively the direction may be issued for maturity amount of the policy in question i.e. Rs. 12,32,000/- as well as compensation.
10.  We have considered the contentions of the Complainant and also perused the record of the file. It is clear from the record that the payment of premium was being done on monthly basis without any default as is corroborated by the bank statements filed by the Complainant. The allegation of the Complainant is that in spite of the premium being paid regularly though ECS on monthly basis, Opposite Parties declared the policy as lapsed on the ground that Complainant changed the payment mode from monthly to quarterly through their website. The Complainant has clearly states on oath that she had never placed any such request. The Opposite Party No.2 in its reply, admits this fact that to activate NACH/direct debit of premium facility, NACH registration request was to be placed and the Complainant failed to place such request. Even if it is assumed that the Complainant placed the request, Opposite Party No.2 was clearly at fault in changing the mode of payment in breach of required procedure as per the rules leading to lapse of policy.
11.  Since the Complainant had testified on oath that she had never placed any request for change of mode and the Opposite Party No.2 had failed to prove its version as their defence was struck off, we have left with no option but to believe the Complainant’s version. 
12. In view of above discussion and the unrebutted and uncontroverted testimony of the Complainant regarding the deficiency of services on the part of Opposite Party, we are of the considered view that the Complainant suffered loss due to change of mode of payment which she never requested, hence the Opposite Party No.2 is liable for deficiency in services to the Complainant as the policy was declared lapsed and Complainant was made to suffer for no fault of hers.
13. Thus, we hold Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd. guilty of deficiency of services, and direct the Opposite Party No.2 to revive /reinstate the policy in question from the date of lapse. The Opposite Party No.2 is further directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till its recovery.
14. Order announced on 15.06.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

 

(Adarsh Nain)              Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President