Delhi

New Delhi

CC/378/2012

Sunita Nayyar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

02 Aug 2019

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                                                    (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                                                  ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                                                         NEW DELHI-110001

 

 

Case No.C.C.378/2012                                                Dated:

In the matter of:

Mrs. Sunita Nayyar,

W/o Sh. Rajeev Nayyar,

R/o B-129, Surya Nagar, Near Bus stand,

Ghaziabad-201002, UP

…… Complainant

Versus

The Manager,

KOTAK MAHINDRALIFE INSURANCE,

            7^th Floor, Amba Deep Building,

K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001.

 

Also at :

 

Manager, KOTAK MAHINDRA LIFE INSURANCE,

Registered Office:

           9^th Floor, Godrej Coliseum,

Behind Everard Nagar, Sion

(East) Mumbai-400022(India).

 

……. Opposite party

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

 

O R D E R

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that on persuasion from the OP about the investment Plan, the complainant invested in two policies, one in her own name and another in the name of her husband by paying one time single premium of Rs.90,000/- each on 29.8.2010. The official of OP had asked her to sign the blank forms, as the complainant had to leave to USA for one/two months, therefore she signed the blank forms.  She was also assured that the rest of the formalities would be done by the office itself.

 

2.     After coming back from the USA, complainant got the policy documents  and after going through the same it was  transpired that the policy pertaining to the name of complainant is not the same as was intended to be purchased.  The said policy was issued for 20 years with an annual payment mode of Rs.90,000/- instead of one time premium plan for 10 years as usual to her husband. Despite the fact that both the policies were purchased on the same date with the same amount of Rs.90,000/- each.   The complainant after knowing the episode about issuance of wrong policy, lodged a complaint with  the OP requesting it to issue the same policy as was issued to her husband and cancel the policy in question.  The OP under the pretext of free-looking-period clause rejected her request.  The complainant sent legal notice dt. 26.9.2011 to the OP thereby calling it to cancel the policy in question and issue a fresh one time premium policy against the payment of Rs.90,000/- .  But nothing has been done by the OP, complainant, therefore, approached this Forum for redressal of her grievance.

 

3.       Complaint has been contested by OP.  It has filed its written statement, wherein it denied any deficiency in services on its 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 15.9.2010 and the same was duly received by her.  The complainant failed to approach OP-1 for conversion/cancellation or for refund of the policy during free-looking period.  After a period of 8 months of the issuance of policy she wrote an e-mail regarding the mis-selling of the policy to the OP as well as for cancellation of the same. Moreover, the complainant has failed to pay the next premium due on 13.9.2011, as such, the policy in question is under lapse mode. Hence, in these circumstances, the complainant is not entitled for any relief claim and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.     Both the parties have filed their evidences by way of Affidavits.

 

5.     We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submissions of Ld. Counsels for the parties.

 

6.     It is argued by the complainant that she left India on 30.8.2010 and have returned on 25.9.2010 along with her husband.  She has not taken the delivery of policy  in question on 15.9.2010 as alleged by the OP in its written statement.  In support of her contention, she has placed on record the copy of passport as well as the bill of mobile No.9810262156.   Perusal of the same shows that she was not in country on 15.9.2010 and as such no policy was received by her on the said date.  After receipt  of the policy documents she registered her grievance regarding mis-selling of the policy with the OP.  The OP instead of redressing her grievance rejected her request under the pretext of free-look in-period.  The OP ought to have considered her request which it failed to do so. 

 

7.     Admittedly, the first premium of Rs.90,000/- was paid to the OP and is with the OP.  The complainant did not pay further premium because she wants the policy in question to be replace with the same policy as was issued to her husband and promised by OP.  Hence, in our view, the non-payment of premium on her part is justified.  The non-redressal her grievance by OP constitute the case of deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, therefore we hold OP guilty of deficiency in services and direct it as under:

1. Convert the policy bearing No.02118616 into same policy as was issued to her husband  for 10 years with single premium term of Rs.90,000/-  w.e.f. 29.8.2010 i.e. the date of receipt of 1^st premium  and issued the policy documents of the same in her favour by the OP.

 

2. Pay to the complainant sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for  mental torture and agony suffered by her which will also include the  cost  of litigation.

 

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 02/08/2019

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

          PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                  (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                MEMBER