Haryana

Karnal

135/2013

Dinesh Kumar S/o Krishan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Gernal Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Radhey Sham

03 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No. 135 of 2013

                                                             Date of instt.  12.03.2013

                                                               Date of decision:3.11.2016

 

Dinesh Kumar son of Shri Krishan Kumar son of Shri Chander Bhan, resident of village Chirao, District Karnal.

 

                                                                         ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. The Branch Manager, Reliance Life Insurance Company Sector-12 Part-1, Karnal.

2. Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited Corporate office 9^th & 10^th Floor Building no.2, R-Tech Park Nirlon Compound, next to Hub Mall, Behind 1-Flex Building Goregaon (East) Mumbai-400 063.

                                                                                 ……Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri Radhey Shyam Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri  A.K.Vohra Advocate for opposite parties.

                                               

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, on the averments that authorized agent of opposite parties approached him and allured him for purchasing Reliance Cash Flow Plan representing that he will have to pay a premium of Rs.24,380.95 per annum for a period of 10 years and after 10 years he would receive a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- on maturity of the policy. Accordingly, he paid a sum of Rs.24,381/- to the said authorized agent, who obtained his signatures on various papers, but the same were not readover and explained to him. Thereafter, he received policy bearing no.19480210 on 12.11.2011. After perusing the policy, he was shocked to know that a sum of Rs.1,84,550/- would be paid him on maturity of the policy and date of benefit expiry was mentioned as 12^th November, 2021. So, he decided to withdraw from the said policy. He approached the said agent and requested him to return his amount, but he postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately refused to accede his request. Thereafter, he approached opposite party no.1 at Karnal, but the opposite party no.1 did not pay any heed to his request. Then, he moved application for withdrawal from the said policy, but no action was taken. Ultimately, he got issued a legal notice dated 22.10.2012 to the opposite parties for withdrawal from the policy and refund of the amount of Rs.24,380/- paid by him as premium alongwith interest thereon, but the same also did not yield any result. Such acts and conduct of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which he suffered mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands and that the complaint is grossly misconceived and misdirected.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant was given detailed description about the features of the Reliance Cash Flow Plan, premium amount to be paid, the tenure of the policy, all the charges to be levied on the same and was also apprised with the terms and conditions before signing the application form. The policy was sent to the complainant on 19.10.2011 and the same was dispatched on 21.10.2011 through speed post. As per guidelines of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority under clause 6(2), the complainant was informed by letter forwarding the policy that he had a period of 15 days from the receipt of the policy documents to review the terms and conditions of the policy and if he  disagreed to any of those terms and conditions, he had option to return the policy stating the reasons and in that case he was entitled to get of the premium paid by him subject to deduction of proportionate risk premium for the period or cover and the expenses incurred by the opposite parties on his medical examination. However, the complainant sent the cancellation request on 25.4.2012, much beyond the freelook period. Even the welcome call given by the Reliance General Insurance Company was disconnected by him for the reasons best known to him. Therefore, the complainant was not entitled to get refund of the premium deposited by him and there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex. C1 to C4 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar Ex.O1 and the copy of the insurance policy documents Ex.O2 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                The complainant had obtained Reliance Cash Flow Insurance Plan from the opposite parties and deposited an amount of Rs.24,380/- as premium. It has been alleged that on receipt of the policy on 12.11.2011 he came to know that he would receive an amount of Rs.1,84,550/- on maturity of the policy instead of Rs.4,50,000/- as told by the authorized agent of the opposite parties and the date of benefit of expiry was mentioned as 12^th November 2021. Therefore, he requested the opposite parties for withdrawal from the said policy and refund of the amount deposited by him. Opposite parties have submitted that the complainant could get cancelled the policy and claim refund of the premium amount within 15 days freelook period from the date of the receipt of the policy, but he moved application for cancellation of the policy on 25.4.2012, whereas the policy was sent to him on 21.10.2011.

7.                 A perusal of the copy of the insurance policy documents Ex.O2 shows that the complainant had filled up the application form, wherein the policy term was mentioned as 10 years, sum insured as Rs.1,84,550/- and premium as Rs.24,751.90. Complainant is an educated person as is evident from the fact that he had signed the application form in English Language. He had even signed the declaration that the contents of the application were readover and understood by him. Therefore, the plea of the complainant that authorized agent of the opposite parties misrepresented to him about sum insured as Rs.4,50,000/-cannot be accepted. The application for obtaining the policy was signed by the complainant on 12.11.2011. As per the case of the opposite parties the policy documents were sent to the complainant on 21.10.2011 through speed post. The complainant has alleged that he received the policy on 12.11.2011. As per the instructions of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority the policy holder may cancel the policy by returning it to the company within 15 days of receiving together with letter of request it to be cancelled and then company will refund the premium paid by the policy holder less deduction for proportionate premium for the time that the company  had provided cover up to the date of cancellation and for expenses incurred by the company for medical examination of the life assured, stamp charges and expenditure incurred in that connection. Thus, the complainant could cancel the policy within freelok period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy. However, he did not opt to cancel the policy within freelook period. The dates of sending application for cancellation of the policy and return of the policy to the opposite parties have neither been mentioned in the complaint nor there is any evidence in this regard. The opposite parties have submitted that the application was moved by the complainant for the first time on 25.04.2012 beyond the period of freelook period. Therefore, the complainant could not get benefit of cancelling the policy within freelook period and as such he was not entitled to refund of the amount of premium deposited by him. Under such facts and circumstances, the complainant has failed to establish that there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

8.                As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 03.11.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member