Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/117

vijay Kumar Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s SMC Insurance Brokers Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Mohd.Nahib Chaudhary Adv.s

19 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 117 dated 25.02.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 19.01.2023.

 

Shri Vijay Kumar Jindal S/o Om Parkas Jindal, r/o. House No.28, Near Gurudwara CRPF, Ludhiana, Punjab-141002.                                                                                                                                   ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. M/s. SMC Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd., office at the upper floor of Capital Small Finance Bank, near Maharaja Regency, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana (through Authorized signatory)
2. M/s. Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Ltd., Regd. Office: Unit 601 & 602, 6^th Floor Raheja Titanium, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon(E), Mumbai-400063 (Through Authorized Signatory)                                                                                 …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Mohd. Nahid Chaudhary, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Exparte.

For OP2                         :         Sh. V.S. Mand, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that  the complainant, a retiree and differently-abled person, approached opposite party No.1, an insurance broker, for seeking insurance policy keeping in view his health conditions and  requirements. On the assurance and representation of opposite party No.1, the complainant purchased insurance policy on 06.03.2018 (Ex. C1) from opposite party No.2. On 13.03.2018, the payment of premium was acknowledged through SMS and it was conveyed that the policy documents will be received within few days. It was also conveyed to the complainant by Ms. Rajni, a representative of the opposite parties that he can return the policy documents within 15 days from the receipt of policy documents and the same could be cancelled. The complainant received the policy documents around 18.03.2018 and as it was not satisfied with its stipulations, so he opted for cancellation and intimated the representative of opposite party No.1. On 29.03.2018 and 02.04.2018, the complainant approached opposite party No.1 and requested for cancellation of the policy but they kept the matter lingering on the pretext of non-availability of staff and further assured that the premium paid against first installments would also be refunded. The complainant continued to visit the office of the opposite parties and further requested them not to deduct future premium from his account. But vide letter dated 06.09.2018, the complainant came to know that his request has been declined and he was forced to continue the policy. On 11.09.2018, when second premium was deducted which is reflected from the statement of account Ex. C5, the complainant again lodged a complaint Ex. C6 but to no avail. According to the complainant, the act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. In the end, the complainant prayed for directing opposite party No.2 to refund the paid premium of Rs.20,798.94 and opposite party No.1 be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.50,000/- as compensation by both opposite parties as well as Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Upon notice, initially opposite party No.1 put in appearance on 12.07.2019 through Sh. Vikram working with it but thereafter, opposite party No.1 absented himself from the proceedings and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.10.2019.

3.                Opposite party No.2 appeared and filed written statement. In the preliminary objections, opposite party No.2 assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability, lack of privity of contract, lack of jurisdiction and deficiency in service etc.

                   On merits, opposite party No.2 alleged that the policy holders had submitted a duly filled up and signed proposal for insurance, details of which is reproduced as under:-

Policy No.	501-6856899
Proposal No	10510720
Name of the Policy Holder/Life Insured	Vijay Kumar Jindal
Proposal date	06.03.2018
Insurance Plan	Elite Advantage
Insurance date	06.03.2018
Premium	Rs.10,399.46
Frequency of premium	Semi-annual
Delivery Details	Speed Post AWB No.EA175328720IN
Policy Documents dispatched on	08.03.2018
Policy document received on	16.03.2018
Policy Term	12 years
Premium Payment Term	12 years

 

Opposite party No.2 further submitted that the complainant had not approached it during the free look period and even after that with any of his grievance at the time of policy terms and conditions. However, it is admitted that the policy was delivered on 16.03.2018. It is further stated that due to non-payment of premium, the policy has moved into lapsed state. As the policy was delivered on 16.03.2018 and the first complaint was received by opposite party No.2 on 30.08.2018 after the five months of date of delivery and the same was suitably replied. Opposite party No.2 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections and has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the policy document-Elite Advantage, Ex. C2 is the copy of letter written by the complainant to the opposite parties, Ex. C3 is the affidavit of the complainant, Ex. C4 is the copy of reply to the letter by the opposite parties, Ex. C5 is the copy of statement of account of the complainant, Ex. C6 is the copy of letter of the complainant, Ex. C7 is the copy of proposal form and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Snehal Sawant, Associate Manager (Legal) of the opposite party No.2 along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy of customer declaration form and direct debit form, Ex. R2 is the copy of aadhar card of the complainant, Ex. R3 is the track record of the consignment at India Post, Ex. R4 is the copy of policy document-Elite Advantage, Ex. R5 is the copy of letter written by complainant, Ex. R6 is the copy of reply to letter by the opposite party and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties. We have also gone through written arguments submitted by opposite party No.2. 

7.                The uncontroverted facts which emerges out from the pleadings and affidavits of the parties that the complainant availed policy No. 501-6856899 which was delivered to the complainant on 18.03.2018 and the opposite parties received Rs.20,798.94 of premium in two installments.

8.                It is the case of the complainant that he approached opposite party No.1 with a specific request for providing him insurance policy which will meet his physical and health requirements as he being a specially-abled person. On receipt of the policy documents and finding it unsuitable to his requirements, the complainant opted for cancellation of the policy.

9.                According to clause 6(2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policy Holder’s Interests) Regulations, 2002 every policy document sent by it is accompanied by a forwarding letter which clearly mentions that in case policy holder is not satisfied with the features or the terms and conditions of the policy he can withdraw/return the policy within 15 days i.e. under the “Free Look Period” provision. So the complainant within the stipulated period approached the opposite parties for cancelling the policy and for refund of the premium. The complainant still being specially-abled person ran pillar to post for getting cancellation of the policy and for refund of the premium, but the opposite parties, especially opposite party No.1 did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant. So the opposite parties have adopted unfair trade practice which amounts to deficiency in service. In the given set of circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if opposite parties are directed to refund the premium amount of Rs.20,798.94 with interest @8% per annum from the date of deposit till date of actual payment along with composite costs of Rs.15,000/- for causing harassment to the complainant.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with an order that the opposite parties shall refund the premium amount of Rs.20,798.94 to the complainant with interest @8% per annum from the date of deposit till date of actual payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties shall further pay composite cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.  The opposite parties are jointly and severally held liable to pay the above said amounts to the complainant. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:19.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Vijay Kumar Jindal Vs M/s. SMC Insurance Brokers                CC/19/117

Present:       Sh. Mohd. Nahid Chaudhary, Advocate for complainant.

                   OP1 exparte.

                   Sh. V.S. Mand, Advocate for OP2.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with an order that the opposite parties shall refund the premium amount of Rs.20,798.94 to the complainant with interest @8% per annum from the date of deposit till date of actual payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties shall further pay composite cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.  The opposite parties are jointly and severally held liable to pay the above said amounts to the complainant. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:19.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.