View 32983 Cases Against Life Insurance
Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal filed a consumer case on 07 Jan 2020 against M/S. Future General India Life Insurance Company Ltd. in the New Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/146/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 08 Jan 2020.
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI
(DISTT. NEW DELHI),
‘M’ BLOCK, 1STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,
NEW DELHI-110001
Case No.CC.146/2015 Dated:
In the matter of:
Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal,
S/o Late Ram Nath Aggarwal,
88, Central Avenue,
C-6, Lane, Sainik Farms,
New Delhi-110062.
……..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
Future General IndiaLife Insurance Co. Ltd.
001, Delta Plaza, Ground Floor,
414, Veer Savarkar Marg,
Prabhadevi,
Mumbai-400 025.
Future General India Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
26, Kailash Building,
K.G. Marg,
New Delhi-01.
Prakash Kumar (Agent Code No.80110668)
H.NO. S-160
Subhash Nagar,
Delhi-34
United India Tower,
9th Floor,3-5-817/818
Basheerbagh,
Hyderabad-500029.
Niti Khand 1, Plot No.28,
Indirapuram, Ghaziabad.
…........OPPOSITE PARTIES
ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT
O R D E R
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.Ps under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the agent of OPs approached the complainant and misrepresented him by saying that the OP Co. has introduced a new policy known as two months re-paid policy and further assured that full amount would be refunded after two months with interest. OP-3 allured to the extent that the complainant issued cheque for a sum of Rs.1,05,001/- to OP-3 in favour of OP-1.
2. After sometime, the complainant realized that the agent of the OPs have mis-represented and forged the information and issued the policy by playing fraud resulting in cheating. The complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs but all in vain. Complainant, therefore, approached this Forum for redressal his grievance.
3. Complaint has been contested by OP-1 & 2. They have filed their written statement, wherein they denied any deficiency in services on their part and stated that the policy terms and conditions specifically provides for a Free Look Period of 15 days, during this period the policy owner is entitled to review the policy terms and conditions and request for a cancellation, if dissatisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy. The policy documents were delivered to the complainant on 6.04.2013 and the same was duly received by him. The complainant failed to approach OP-1 for conversion/cancellation for refund of the policy during free-looking period, it was presumed that the contract was legally concluded between the parties. The OP had acted with utmost care and diligence and as such the complainant is not entitled for any relief prayed.
4. Both the parties have filed their evidences by way of affidavit.
5. We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.
6. Perusal of the file shows that complainant has no Locus Standi to file the present complaint. The complainant in the present complaint is Mr. Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal, whereas the policy in question was issued in the name of one Sh. Puneet Aggarwal. Even Sh. Reavinder Kumar Aggarwal, complainant in the present complaint has not placed on record any Power of Attorney in his favour issued by the policy holder i.e. Puneet Aggarwal.
7. As per section 2 (1) (d) of the C.P. Act consumer means any person who:
i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised , or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose” or
ii) [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of first mentioned persons [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose].
8. In view of the above provision, we are of the considered opinion that in the present complaint neither Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal has purchased the policy in question nor any Power of Attorney has been signed in his favour by the original policy holder Puneet Aggarwal to file and contest the matter on his behalf, hence, we are of opinion that Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal has no Local Standi to file the present complaint.
9. In view of the above discussion, we are inclined to hold that Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal does not fall within the definition of consumer as define in the Section 2 (1) (d) of CP Act. and is not a consumer, we find no merits in the complaint, same is hereby dismissed.
A copy of this order be sent to both parties free of cost by post. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Forum on 07/01/2020.
(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)
PRESIDENT
(NIPUR CHANDNA) (H M VYAS)
MEMBER MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.