Complainant Amar Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to return Rs.1,00,000/- plus interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of encashment of the said cheque along with Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the harassment and mental agony suffered by him and also Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
- The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a retired person and also a senior citizen and was having three insurance policies of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance. It was pleaded that in the last week of June, 2014 one Ravi Malhotra an employee of the opposite parties made a phone call through Cell No.09857823304 to the complainant and asked about the Insurance and told that he will get released the policy of ICICI prudential Life of Rs.8,77,898/- released per-maturely if the complainant will purchase a policy of PNB Met Life for Rs.1,00,000/- which will be in the form of FDRS and the complainant has to pay Rs.99999/- which will be payable after one year along with interest as it was the business promotion Scheme of the opposite parties. It was pleaded that on the assurance complainant sent a cheque of Rs.99999/- through registered post to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 demanded the said cheque through their agent but no other document etc. were got signed by them and on suspicion the complainant stopped the payment of cheque which was issued to the opposite parties. After three four days Ravi Malhotra and one of official made a phone Cell call for clearance of the cheque and assured the complainant that they will be liable for making the payment after one year along with full benefits and in case of any problem or dispute they will be liable for the same and on their request complainant cleared the cheque from his banker. It was further pleaded that on 30.7.2014 complainant received an envelope in which an Insurance Policy dated 22.7.2014 was contained and on opening the packet complainant was shocked as the policy has been sent for the period of 15 years of annual premium amount of Rs.99,999/- in place of one year fixed amount. Complainant contacted the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 told him that the above said policy had been sent by opposite party no.2 and only opposite party no.2 can entertain his grievance and change the policy for one year period as FDRS. Complainant told to opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1 that he is a retired person and is unable to deposit such like huge amount of premium and he had been cheated by their employee and the agent whose cell number is now switched off and on this opposite parties assured him that they will change the policy and advised him to submit the written objection. It was also pleaded that complainant had returned the original policy along with its envelope which containing the stamp of post office on dated 11.8.2014 along with application but nothing was heard from opposite parties. In the first week of October 2014 complainant received a letter dated 22.9.2014 from opposite party No.2 regarding the receiving of grievance and specimen signature (Pan Card/D.L./Passport) which were submitted by the complainant on 24.10.2014 and after that complainant time and again received the letters with one objection or the other and complainant replied to all the letters and completed all the formalities. It was next pleaded that opposite party No.2 had shown their inability through letter dated 27.3.2015 regarding the cancellation of policy with the lame excuse that the same has not been sent within free look period of 15 days and rejected the claim whereas the complainant had sent the policy back to the opposite parties on 11.8.2014 within free look period and if the same had not been received by them the complainant had no fault for the late delivery of letter by the postal department. Moreover, there was no condition in the policy that it should reach in the office within 15 days. It was next pleaded that complainant is a senior citizen and is a retired period and has no source of income to continue the policy and he had already been cheated by the employee/agent of the opposite parties. On the other hand the opposite parties rejected his claim and returned the policy due to which he had caused mental agony and harassment and is entitle for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for financial loss, Rs.50,000/- for harassment besides Rs.9,99,999/- received by the opposite parties. It was pleaded that act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties did not appear and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 9.11.2015.
- Complainant tendered into exparte evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 along with other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C17 and closed the evidence.
5. We have examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have duly considered and perused the arguments as put forth by the learned counsel for the present complainant, while at the same time also taking the due judicial-notice of the OP insurers’ optional but intentional ‘ex-parte’ participation, in spite of the ‘proven’ summon-service. Although, it has been a settled law that a title-named party’s intentional absence/ex-parte participation gives rise to the judicial but discretionary presumption that the ex-parte/absentee litigant has no defense to prosecute; still, we have provided a judicious opportunity to the OP insurers by way of a close examination and a fairly deduced ‘resume’ upon which to place/base the resultant award under the adjudicatory Act.
6. We find that the Policy in question Ex.C2 (duly supported by Policy Schedule Ex.C3 & Premium Receipt Ex.C4) were received by/delivered to the complainant on 30.07.2014 as exhibited by the postal receipt envelope Ex.C5 and the same was duly returned/surrendered (Ex.C7) within the 15 day free look-in period on 11.08.2014 as is evident from the postal dispatch Receipt Ex.C6. Thus, it stands proved that the return/surrender/cancellation of the Policy in question was successfully executed within the 15 day free look-in period of the issuance of the Policy document. Further, the 9 nos. of letters (Ex.C9 to Ex.C17) as issued from the office of the OP insurers from (22.09.2014 to 06.04.2015) tell a continuing tale of ‘unscrupulous exploitation’ of the subserviently positioned consumer complainant faced with ‘unfair trade practice’ and ‘deficiency in service’ at the OPs hands. Letter(s) Ex.C9 (of 22.09.2014), Ex.C10 (26.11.2014) & Ex.C11 (30.12.2014) refer to the complainant’s return/ surrender of the Policy Ex.C7 as a ‘complaint’ letter and ask him to submit copy of ‘specimen signatures’ (PAN card/Driving license/Passport) and that proves that these documents (specimen signatures) were not procured at the time of issuance of Policy along with the duly-signed proposal form etc. Further, the 4 nos. of letters Ex.C12 to Ex.C15 do not convey any other meaning except to cause undesired ‘delay’ to frustrate the ‘refund’ request of the complainant. The letter Ex.C16 (of 27.03.2015) shows that the photograph/documents as requisitioned by the OPs and as submitted by the complainant in response to the above letters have enabled them to compile/fabricate the application form etc and there is also the mention of ‘non-return & non-surrender’ of the Policy during the 15 day free look-in period; whereas the last letter Ex.C17 of 06.04.2015 acknowledges the receipt of the ‘cancellation’ letter but on 19.08.2014 i.e., after the lapse of the 15 day free look-in period whereas the same was duly dispatched on 11.08.2014 as per the postal receipt Ex.C7. The above narrative discussions amply prove the ‘statutory’ liability of the OP insurers and thus we hold them guilty to an adverse award under the Act.
7. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP insurers to pay/refund the Policy’s first receipted full premium amount of Rs.99,999/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% PA from the date of its receipt besides Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation within 30 days of receipt of the copy of these orders, otherwise the entire awarded amount shall attract additional interest @ 9% PA form the date of the orders till actually paid.
8. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
JAN. 12, 2016 Member.
*YP*
