| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB)
CC No. 38 of 23-01-2012 Decided on : 13-07-2012
Pardeep Garg S/o Sh. Balraj Garg S/o Sh. Chanan Ram, aged about 35 years R/o Mohalla Hargobind Nagar, Near Old Bus Stand, Bathinda. .... Complainant Versus Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., H. Block, Ist Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge city, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 710 through its Managing Director/Chairman/G.M. Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office : Near Hazi Rattan Chowk, Bathinda through its Branch Manager/Incharge/Authorized Signatory.
..... Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
For the Complainant : Sh. Ish Kumar, counsel for the complainant For the Opposite party : Sh. Chander Mohan, counsel for the opposite parties.
O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that in the month of July/August, 2011, Mr. Munish Mehta, an official from Delhi office of the opposite parties allured the complainant for purchase of Insurance policy with attached benefits like medical for 4 persons for Rs. 1.00 Lac each P.A., accidental Insurance cover of Rs. 2.40 Lacs for one person; annual return of the opposite parties around 30-35% and the life of the complainant shall remained insured for Rs. 2.00 Lacs. The complainant agreed to purchase the policy and paid cheque of Rs. 30,000/- to opposite party No. 2. The complainant alleged that on receipt of insurance documents, he found that instead of issuing cash flow policy, the opposite parties have issued ULIP Policy “Reliance Life Insurance Money Multiplier Plan' dated 31-08-2011 and no such benefits as verbally conveyed by the official of the opposite parties on telephone were mentioned/attached in the insurance documents. The complainant made telephone call at Delhi office of the opposite parties and conveyed about the same who assured him that the relevant documents regarding the medical and accident cover were under process and would be sent to him very soon. The complainant after waiting for sufficient time for the documents, visited the office of opposite party No. 2 and moved application for cancellation of policy. The officials of the opposite party No. 2 promised the complainant that they shall forward his application to the concerned office and his policy would be cancelled and refund paid to him very soon. The complainant received letter dated 18-11-2011 from the opposite parties wherein they have declined his request on flimsy grounds. The complainant alleged that he made repeated requests to the opposite parties for cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium, but to no effect. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs. 30,000/- alongwith interest and pay compensation and cost. The opposite parties filed their joint written reply and pleaded that that as per their record, the complainant had purposed for 'Reliance Money Multiplier Plan' (which is a traditional plan) vide proposal form D-1705363 dated 31-08-2011 by paying annual premium of Rs. 29,994.36 and accordingly policy No. 19271243 with risk commencement date as 31-08-2011 having sum assured of Rs. 2,00,800/- was issued to him. As per their record, Perfect Insurance Advisory who is the third party agent, done the insurance policy of complainant. The opposite parties have further pleaded the complainant has suppressed the material facts regarding getting the second policy bearing No. 19383582 dated 10-10-2011 under 'Reliance Cash Flow Plan'. The said policy was taken by the complainant after 40 days of the issuance of policy in dispute and in the proposal form No. D-1705201 dated 10-10-2011, submitted with the opposite parties, the complainant in response to query of question No. 20, specifically mentioned about the detail of policy No. 19271243 and that the said policy is in force. The opposite parties have admitted that they have received request for the cancellation of policy from the complainant but the same was denied vide letter dated 18-11-2011 on the ground that the request was made beyond free look period. The opposite parties have denied that they issued 'Reliance Money Multiplier Plan' instead of 'Reliance Cash Flow Plan' and that the Reliance Money Multiplier Plan is a ULIP policy. The opposite parties have further pleaded they have issued the policy which was opted/choosen by the complainant. As per Section 6(2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of policy holders interest) Regulation 2002, insured can avail free look cancellation or modifications within 15 days of the receipt of the policy document. The opposite parties have rightly rejected the request of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. The allegation of the complainant is that on the allurement of the official of the opposite parties he agreed to purchase the cash flow insurance policy but on receipt of policy documents he found that the opposite parties instead of issuing the cash flow policy, issued ULIP 'Reliance Life Insurance Money Multiplier' policy. The complainant contacted on phone the official of opposite party No. 2, who assured him that required documents regarding medical and accident cover are under process. When the complainant did not receive the documents, he applied for cancellation of the policy No. 19271243, but the opposite parties vide their letter dated 18-11-2011 declined his request for cancellation of the policy. On the other hand, the pleading of the opposite parties is that the cancellation request of the complainant has rightly been declined as he has not applied for cancellation of policy within 15 days of the free look period after receiving the policy and applied after about 75 days. Further more, the complainant had purchased another policy bearing No. 19383582 and while filling the proposal for second policy, he has mentioned 'in force' against the column of first policy. The contention of the opposite parties that in the proposal form of second policy, the complainant has mentioned 'in force' against the column of first policy, is not tenable as the complainant has alleged in para No. 3 of his complaint that the officials of opposite party No. 2 got his signatures on some blank papers without explaining anything to the complainant about the features of the policy. In para No. 6 of affidavit Ex. C-7, the complainant has deposed that:- “ Infact, even at the time of second policy, the official of the opposite parties obtained the signatures of the complainant on blank papers without explaining the contents of the same to the complainant and since the record pertaining to the earlier policy was already in the knowledge of the opposite parties, they themselves has marked the tick in the column of 'in force'. Moreover, on seeing the act and conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant already got cancelled his second policy and has already received the amount pertaining to the second policy.” The next contention of the opposite parties that they have rightly rejected the cancellation request of the complainant as he has not applied for cancellation within 15 days of the free look period after receiving the policy, is also without any basis. The opposite parties have not placed any document on file to prove that through which mode and when the terms and conditions regarding free look period were furnished to the complainant and on which date the same were actually received by the complainant. Thus, in the absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that the complainant did not apply for cancellation within the free look period. The opposite parties have admitted in their written version that the complainant purchased both the insurance policies through agent i.e. Perfect Insurance Advisory. In such circumstances, the version of the complainant seems to be correct that he was allured by some official of the opposite parties of Delhi Office regarding the policy in question and later on issued some other policy meaning thereby that the agent allured him by conveying something else and later on the opposite parties issued him some other policy. The opposite parties have not even placed on file a copy of the policy in question alongwith terms and conditions. Hence, keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence placed on file by the parties, this Forum is of the view that when no terms and conditions were supplied to the complainant, the complainant is not bound by such terms and conditions. The opposite parties cannot garb the hard earned money of the consumers on such pleas. The complainant is not bound by the terms and conditions which were never supplied to him. In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled for the refund of the premium of the policy in question. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with Rs.2000/- as cost. The opposite parties are directed to cancel the policy No. 19271243 with risk commencement date as 31-08-2011 issued in the name of complainant and refund Rs. 30,000/- charged from him vide Ex. R-7. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the aforesaid amount of Rs. 30,000/- would yield interest @ 9% P.A. w.e.f. 31-08-2011 till realization. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to the record.
Pronounced in open Forum 13-07-2012 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
| |
