Delhi

North East

CC/147/2018

Sh. Manmohan Padam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 147/18

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Manmohan Padam S/o Sh. Bhagwan Sahai R/o I-85 A, Block-I, Garhwali Mohalla, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092	Complainant
	Versus
1.     2.	Reliance Life Ins. Co. Ltd. Bhajanpura D-31/4A, Street No. 11, Shahdara, Delhi-110053   Reliance Life Ins. Co. Ltd. No-109-110, Plot No.9, Ist Floor, Vardhman City-2 Plaza Commercial Centre, Asif Ali Road, Delhi-110002	Opposite Parties

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

20.07.18 30.01.23 27.03.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant purchased a policy from the agent of Opposite Party vide policy no. D0532610 and paid Rs. 25,000/- vide receipt no. WC0013328512. The policy was issued on 22.07.11. The Complainant stated that he never received policy bond from Opposite Party. The Complainant stated that in February 2018 Complainant was in need of money and decided to sold his policy. The Complainant visited office of Opposite Party but official of Opposite Party refused to refund the amount of Complainant. The Complainant visited office of Opposite Party many times but Opposite Party did not give any response to him. The Complainant stated that on 30.03.18 Complainant lodged complaint in mediation centre but Opposite Party did not appear. On 04.07.18 Complainant send a letter to Opposite Party but Opposite Party did not give any reply. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed to refund the deposit amount of Rs. 25,000/- along with 18 % interest and Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment. He has also prayed for Rs. 15,000/- as litigation cost.

Case of the Opposite Parties

2. Opposite Party No.1 and 2 contested the case and filed common written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Parties that the complaint is liable to be dismissed since the complaint of the Complainant is hopelessly time barred as per section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. Hence the present complaint is not maintainable. As per the complaint no cause of action regarding lack in services on the part of the Opposite Party has been disclosed.
3. That the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed on account of non-joinder of a necessary and proper party i.e. agent who had allegedly misinformed the Complainant about the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, relying upon which the Complainant alleges mis-selling of the policy to him by the aforementioned agent, it is essential that the agent be impleaded as a party as it is the agent alone who can testify as to what terms of the insurance he had informed the Complainant as it is within the domain of his personal knowledge.
4. That the instant complaint is not maintainable as the Complainant in the present dispute does not comes under the definition of Consumer as per the latest judgment of the National Commission in Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. wherein it has been stated that “the investment made by the petitioner/Complainant was to gain profit. Hence, it was invested for commercial purposes and therefore, the petitioner/ Complainant is not consumer under the Opposite Parties”. In another case of Smt. Abanti Kumari Sahoo Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. the State Commission, Odisha First appeal No. 162/2010 held that “the money if the petitioner/ Complainant invested in the share market is no doubt a speculative gain and the speculative investment does not come under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986”. It is submitted that the present policy in question are Unit Linked policies and law is well settled that such polices are speculative in nature and the same are taken for investment purpose. Therefore, the policy holders of such policies are not consumers and disputes relating to such policies are not sustainable before the Consumer Forum. Thus in view of the above submissions the present complaint is not maintainable against the Opposite Parties and may be dismissed at the very first instance.
5.  It is the humble submission of the Opposite Party that Complainant himself after reading and understanding the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, voluntary signed the proposal form without any inducement on the part of the Opposite Parties therefore, the Complainant is bound with its terms and conditions of the proposal form between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties. The Complainant vide signed application applied for the life insurance and had taken out a policy from Opposite Party.
6. Relying on the statements and representations made by the Complainant in the said proposal for Life Insurance Form, policy was issued by Opposite Party.
7.  It is further submitted by the Opposite Parties that the said policy no. 19166697 was duly dispatched to the Complainant on 25.07.11 via pod no. is 200226741792 at the address provided by the Complainant and mentioned in the application form and the same was duly dispatched at the address of the Complainant. However, the Complainant, despite the receipt of the Policy Documents has not raised any objections or complaints during the free-look period and hence it was presumed that the contract of insurance which we had with the Complainant was legally concluded.
8. Further, the Complainant after a belated period of 7 year had approached the Opposite Parties with a malafide intention to get the policy cancelled. The Complainant had already received the documents in the month of July 2011.
9.  It is further submitted that the Complainant in his complaint addressed to the Director, mediation Centre, Rajpur Raod, Delhi, himself admits that he did not paid the premium because the agent of the Opposite Party did not approached the Complainant.
10.  It is submitted that the Complainant request for cancellation of his policy cannot be processed since it is beyond the free look cancellation period.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

11. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

12. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

13. In order to prove its case Opposite Parties have filed affidavit of Shri Mangesh Verma, AR of the company on behalf of the Opposite Parties, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Parties have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

14. We have heard the AR for the Complainant and Counsel for the Opposite Parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by Parties. The case of the Complainant is that he purchased a policy from Opposite Party on 22.07.11 by paying Rs. 25,000/-. It is further alleged by the Complainant that he never received policy bond from the Opposite Party. The Complainant stated that in February 2018, he was need of the money and decided to sold his policy and approach the Opposite Party for the same and Opposite Party refused to refund the amount to the Complainant. So, there is deficiency on the part of Opposite Party.
15. The case of the Opposite Party is that it is admitted that Complainant purchased a policy on 22.07.11 and they dispatched policy documents to the Complainant on 25.07.11. However, the Complainant despite receipt of the policy documents has not raised any objection or complaint during the free look period. Hence, it was presumed that the contract of insurance which they had with the Complainant was legally concluded. It is further submitted by the Opposite Party is that Complainant in his complaint address to the Director Mediation Centre, Rajpur Road, Delhi, himself admits that he did not pay the premium because the agent of the Opposite Party did not approach the Complainant. Hence, request for the cancellation of his policy cannot be processed since it is beyond the free look cancellation period and approach the Opposite Party after a belated period of 7 years from the date of the policy. Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of Opposite Party.
16. The Complainant himself admitted in his application to the Additional Director Mediation Centre, Rajpur Road, Delhi on 30.03.18 that he purchased a policy for 10 years by paying premium of Rs. 25,000/- for 1 year and he did not pay the further premium because he did not receive any letter or call from the Opposite Party. It is also clear from the letter to the Mediation Centre that he knew the terms and conditions of the policy and approach the Opposite Party after 7 years from the date of the policy. Further he did not alleged that he did not receive any policy document in the month of July 2011.
17. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is dismissed.    
18. Order announced on 27.03.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President