Order dictated by:
Sh. Anoop Sharma,Presiding Member
- Shalinder complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that opposite party No.2 approached the complainant through Mr. Rajan Mahajan , who persuaded him to get an insurance policy from the opposite parties. The complainant opted to obtain a non-ulip life Insurance policy from the opposite parties and paid Rs. 12584/- on 16.4.2015. Despite receiving the policy premium from the complainant, opposite parties have failed to deliver the original Insurance policy documents to the complainant. The complainant made several complaints regarding non delivery of the original Insurance policy and requested to issue the original policy documents, but they did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-
- Opposite parties be directed to immediately issue policy documents to the complainant without any further delay ;
- Opposite parties be also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 30000/- alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 10000/- to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complainant after going through the different insurance plans, submitted the proposal form, which was accepted by the opposite party and on the basis of the same the policy was issued to the complainant . It was submitted that the policy was issued under policy No. 21561999 w.e.f. 18.5.2015 and the policy documents includes the proposal form, policy documents, terms and conditions, illustration, receipt etc were sent to the complainant at his given address on 19.5.2015 through Blue Dart Courier Service under Tracking No. 4066845300. The policy of the complainant is in lapse condition, as such complainant is not the consumer of the opposite party. The complainant has not come to the court with clean hands , as such complainant is not entitled for any relief, as alleged by him in his complaint. The complaint has been filed by the complainant with the malafide intention to grab the public money, as such the same is liable to be dismissed.. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was made.
3. In his bid to prove the case Sh.Ravinder Singh,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of premium receipt ExC-2, copy of complaint letter dated 20.7.2015 Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Ankum Sanon, Branch Service Manager, PNB Metlife India Insurance Co.Ltd tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit ExOP1, coy of application form Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that on the persuasion of Mr. Rajan Mahajan, officer of the opposite party No.2, complainant obtained insurance policy from the opposite party on payment of premium of Rs. 12584/- on 16.4.2015, copy of premium receipt is Ex.C- 2 on record. Complainant has alleged that he did not receive the policy documents from the opposite party. The complainant made several complaints regarding non delivery of the original Insurance policy and requested them to issue the policy documents. In this regard complainant wrote letter dated 20.7.2015 exbt.C-3 . But till date the opposite parties did not deliver the policy documents to the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that in order to obtain insurance policy, the complainant filled in and signed the proposal form in which all the terms and conditions of the policy were written. On the basis of this proposal form , opposite party issued policy No. 21561999 w.e.f. 18.5.2015. The policy documents were despatched to the complainant on 19.5.2015 through Bluedart Courier under Tracking No. 4066845300. Ld.counsel for the opposite parties submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
8. From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that complainant obtained a Non Ulip Life Insurance Policy from the opposite parties by paying premium of Rs. 12584/- on 16.4.2015. The complainant did not receive the policy documents and in this regard he wrote letter to the opposite party vide letter dated 20.7.2015 exbt.C-3 asking the opposite party to send the policy documents . But the opposite parties failed to send the policy documents to the complainant. On the other hand opposite parties have submitted that they had issued the policy No. 21561999 w.e.f. 18.5.2015 and the same was despatched on 19.5.2015 through Bluedart Courier. But the opposite party could not produce any affidavit of the person from Bluedart Courer who could depose that he delivered the policy documents to the complainant on 19.5.2015. Further opposite party has also not produced any receipt book/register of Bluedart Courier to prove that the policy documents were duly received by the complainant under her own signatures. It has been held by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , Punjab in First Appeal No. 1602 of 2012 decided on 22.1.2013 titled as ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jasjit Walia that where a person who delivered the shipment has not been produced nor his affidavit has been filed. Moreover, the document itself shows that shipment was not delivered to the complainant but it was received by one Kulwinder. There is no mention whether this Kulwinder is a male or female or what is the relationship of complainant with Kulwinder . Otherwise also , the delivery of the shipment to Kulwinder cannot be considered as the delivery of the policy to the complainant.
9. All this fully proves that the opposite party has failed to prove on record that the policy documents were ever delivered to the complainant. Consequently we dispose of the complaint with the directions to the opposite parties to issue duplicate policy to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Opposite parties are also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 1000/- to the complainant. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 18.5.2017
