Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/43/2018

Reliance Life Insurance Comapany Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Om Prakash Raheja s/o Hari Ram Raheja - Opp.Party(s)

Vinay Mathur

07 Aug 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 43 /2018

 

Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. through Manager Claim Deptt., Reliance House, 6^th floor, Nagambackaham, Chennai & ors.

Vs.

Omprakash Raheja s/o Hariram Raheja r/o S/15/C Mahaveer Marg, Near Landmark Building, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 7.8.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr.Kamal Chamaria counsel for the appellants

Mr.K.J.Mehta counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

2

 

This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the District Forum, Jaipur 4^th dated 8.11.2017 whereby the premium amount of Rs. 4,84,716/- alongwith interest and compensation were refunded to the respondent.

 

The contention of the appellant is that insurance policies were purchased voluntarily by the respondent and in free look period no request for cancellation was made. Hence, the appeal should have been allowed.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that the policies were purchased on the assurance of the appellant to disburse them Rs. 10 lakhs loan which was never disbursed. Hence, the claim has rightly been allowed.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the policies were purchased by the respondent and original policy certificates were also submitted . The first contention of the respondent is

 

3

 

that he was assured about 230% benefit but Anx. 1 and other policies clearly shows the guaranteed benefit and when policies were received by the respondent and 230% return was not mentioned in them, the respondent was free to cancel the policy in free look period but he has not chosen to do so.

 

The Forum below was of the opinion that the proposal form has not been submitted which gave a presumption that policies were not purchased by free will but this is not the contention of the complainant that he has not purchased the policy with free will. The only contention of the complainant is that he was assured to sanction Rs. 10 lakhs loan but to support this contention no documentary evidence has been submitted and further more it may be noted that policies were purchased over a period of six months. If after purchase of first policy loan has not been sanctioned the respondent was free not to purchase other policies or to return first policy in free look period but this option has not been exercised by the respondent. Hence, in view of the above that the policies were purchased by the respondent with free will and during free look period the request for cancellation was not made no deficiency could be attributed to the appellant.

4

 

The appellant has relied upon judgments passed by this Commission in First Appeal No. 460/2017 Inderbhan Thareja Vs. Reliance Life Insurance and First Appeal No. 1077/2017 Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Vs. Amar Singh Kasana wherein same controversy has been dealt with.

 

In view of the above the appeal is allowed and the order of the Forum below dated 8.11.2017 is set aside.

 

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm