BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 678 of 2014

Date of Institution:        30.12.2014

Date of Decision:           1.12.2015

Mr.Gurjinder Singh S/o Sh. Avinash Singh R/o House No. 15-B, Gali No.2, New Azad Nagar, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar

Complainant

Versus

Reliance Life Insurance Ltd through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principal Officer having one of its office at Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar service through its branch manager

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:    For the Complainant                  :  Sh.Deepinder Singh,Advocate

               For the Opposite Party      : Sh. Rajesh Sabharwal,Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Gurjinder Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that  he obtained policy from the opposite party vide proposal form No. D4191349 in September 2013 after payment of premium of Rs. 37000/-. Complainant has alleged that  he did not receive the policy documents from the opposite party despite so many requests made by the complainant.  On 8.9.2014 complainant wrote to the opposite party for the refund of his invested amount of Rs. 37000/- as the complainant was not satisfied with the services of the opposite party as they did not issue the policy documents till date. The opposite party vide letter dated 16.9.2014 rejected the request of the complainant on the ground that the policy had been issued to the complainant as he did not exercise his option of cancellation of the policy within free look period. Thereafter complainant approached the opposite party several times to get his invested amount but to no avail. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to refund the invested amount of Rs. 37000/- alongwith interest. Compensation of Rs. 25000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that in order to obtain the policy, the complainant filled in and signed the proposal form No.D4191349 in September 2013 and paid premium of Rs. 37000/-. On the basis of the said proposal form, opposite party issued policy No. 51236986 dated 30.9.2013 to the complainant which was dispatched to the complainant vide speed post No. EP800197097IN dated 10.10.2013, again on the request of the complainant policy details were dispatched to the complainant which were received by the complainant on 6.9.2014 . It was submitted that complainant has not availed the free look period for cancellation of his policy so the opposite party rejected the request of the complainant for cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium amount. While denying and controverting other allegations dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of acknowledgement Ex.C-2, cancellation request Ex.C-3, copy of first premium receipt Ex.C-4.
4. Opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Porush Dewan,Sr.Manager Ex.OP1, proposal form Ex.OP2, copy of POD No. EP80019709IN Ex.OP3.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the  parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant obtained policy from the opposite party vide proposal form No. D4191349 in September 2013 after payment of premium of Rs. 37000/-. The complainant alleges that  he did not receive the policy documents from the opposite party despite so many requests made by the complainant. The complainant submitted request for cancellation of policy on 8.9.2014 to the opposite party for the refund of the premium as the complainant was not satisfied with the services of the opposite party as they did not issue the policy documents till date. The opposite party vide letter dated 16.9.2014 Ex.C-3 rejected the request of the complainant on the ground that the policy had been issued to the complainant as he did not exercise his option of cancellation of the policy within free look period. Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant was never delivered the policy documents by the opposite party. So all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that in order to obtain the policy, the complainant filled in and signed the proposal form No.D4191349 in September 2013 and paid premium of Rs. 37000/-. On the basis of the said proposal form, opposite party issued policy No. 51236986 dated 30.9.2013 to the complainant which was dispatched to the complainant vide speed post No. EP800197097IN dated 10.10.2013, again on the request of the complainant policy details were dispatched to the complainant which were received by the complainant on 6.9.2014 . As per track result of Indian Post Ex.OP3 on 10.10.2012, the policy documents were dispatched to the complainant ,but the complainant applied for cancellation of the policy vide cancellation request form dated 8.9.2014 Ex.C-2 which was not within the free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents, so the opposite party rejected the request of the complainant for cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium amount. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, it stands fully proved on record that complainant in order to obtain the Insurance policy from the opposite party filled in and signed the proposal form No.D4191349 in September 2013 and paid premium amount of Rs. 37000/-. The complainant through his affidavit Ex.C-1 has categorically stated that he has not received the policy documents till date from the opposite party , so he was not satisfied with the services of the opposite party and he submitted request form dated 8.9.2014 with the opposite party for the cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium amount. Whereas opposite party has submitted that they issued policy No.51236986 dated 30.9.2013 to the complainant  which was dispatched vide speed post No. EP800197097IN dated 10.10.2013 which was delivered on 10.10.2013 as per track result produced by the opposite party Ex.OP3. Whereas the complainant has categorically stated that he has not received the policy documents from the opposite party. It is the duty of the opposite party to prove the delivery of the policy documents to the insured by examining the postman, who delivered the policy and to whom ; if not to the complainant, what was the relation of that person whom the policy was delivered . But in the present case opposite party neither produced the dak book of the concerned postman to prove that to whom the said postman delivered the policy documents nor examined the said postman, who allegedly delivered the policy documents and to whom nor the opposite party could produce any evidence whether the policy documents were delivered to the complainant or to any other person and what was the relation of that person with the complainant. Further, the opposite party in the written version has submitted that they dispatched the policy documents to the complainant on 10.10.2013 , whereas the track result Ex.OP3 is of the document dispatched on 8.10.2013 but delivered on 10.10.2013. It has been held by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab,Chandigarh 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 and where the shipment has been delivered to 3rd person, same can not be considered as the delivery of the policy to the complainant. Nor the opposite party could produce any record of the post office i.e. Dak Book of postman to prove that on which date the policy documents were deliverd and to whom. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Unit Trust of India Vs. Ravinder Kumar Shukla 2005(2) CPC 683 that where the documents/cheques were sent by the UTI which could not be received by the payee, it was held that post office acted as agent of UTI while sending the cheques. If the UTI failed to prove its proper delivery to the payee, UTI is liable for deficiency in service for non delivery of the cheques.

9.       So it stands fully proved on record that opposite party has failed to prove that policy documents have been delivered to the complainant/insured, therefore, complainant could not exercise his option of free look and the complainant submitted form dated 8.9.2014 Ex.C-2 asking the opposite party to cancel the policy and to refund the premium amount to the complainant. Opposite party is,therefore, liable to refund the amount of premium to the complainant subject to deduction of proportionate risk premium for the period of cover and other costs pertaining to stamp duty and medical examination of the proposer, if any.

10.     Resultantly complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to refund the amount of premium subject to deduction of proportionate risk premium for the period of cover and other costs pertaining to stamp duty and medical examination of the proposer, if any, to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of orders, failing which complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a on that amount from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite Party is also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

1.12.2015                                                             ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

/R/                        ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)           (Anoop Sharma)

Member                                   Member