Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that she received a call from telephone No.087507-15237 of Bimal Bhati that some amount has been received from PNB Metlife in the name of her daughter and for that, she has to send Rs.15,000/- as tax and accordingly, the complainant sent Rs.15000/-, but the complainant astonished that the Opposite Party has sent her a policy without her consent and without her signatures on any form and told that after six months, she will get the amount of Rs.15,000/-, but the complainant has not received any such policy till date and thereafter, she approached the Opposite Parties to refund the said amount, but to no affect. In this way, said conduct of the Opposite Parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service and as such, the Complainant is left with no other alternative but to file the present complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- The Opposite Parties may be directed to refund the amount of Rs.15,000/- and also to grant any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit.
2. Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version on the ground inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and that the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous. It is submitted that first of all, the present complaint is hopelessly time barred as the policy in question was proposed on 15.11.2016 and the policy was received by the complainant on 18.11.2016 and further the claim of the complainant for cancellation of policy was rejected vide letter dated 26.04.2017. Whereas the present complaint was filed on the ground of mis selling of policy after three years of issuance of policy and more than two years of rejected of her claim, therefore the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. Moreover, the Opposite Parties have already paid the foreclosure amount of Rs.2168.70 paisa vide cheque No. 256485 dated 15.11.2019 to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further submitted that the complainant purchased the policy Reliance Guaranteed Money Back Plan bearing No. 52795358, with policy issue dated 09.11.2016 with policy term 15 years and premium term 10 years and said policy was duly dispatched vide mode Speed Post No.EP800938911IN dtd 15.11.16 which was admittedly received by the complainant and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. On merits, the Opposite Parties took up almost same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.
3. In order to prove her case, the complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed her evidence.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Khushpreet Singh, Branch Manager Ex.OPs1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.Ops2 to Ex.Ops5 and original CD Ex.OPs6 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the attorney of the complainant and counsel for the Opposite Parties and gone through the documents placed on record.
6. We have perused the rival contentions of the parties. The case of the complainant is that she received a call from telephone No.087507-15237 of Bimal Bhati that some amount has been received from PNB Metlife in the name of her daughter and for that, she has to send Rs.15,000/- as tax and accordingly, the complainant sent Rs.15000/-, but the complainant astonished that the Opposite Party has sent her a policy without her consent and without her signatures on any form and told that after six months, she will get the amount of Rs.15,000/-, but the complainant has not received any such policy till date and thereafter, she approached the Opposite Parties to refund the said amount, but to no affect. In this way, said conduct of the Opposite Parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service.
7. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contents of the complainant on the ground that first of all, the present complaint is hopelessly time barred as the policy in question was proposed on 15.11.2016 and the policy was received by the complainant on 18.11.2016 and further the claim of the complainant for cancellation of policy was rejected vide letter dated 26.04.2017. Whereas the present complaint was filed on the ground of mis-selling of policy after three years of issuance of policy and more than two years of rejected of her claim, therefore the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. Moreover, the Opposite Parties have already paid the foreclosure amount of Rs.2168.70 paisa vide cheque No. 256485 dated 15.11.2019 to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further submitted that the complainant purchased the policy Reliance Guaranteed Money Back Plan bearing No. 52795358, with policy issue dated 09.11.2016 with policy term 15 years and premium term 10 years and said policy was duly dispatched vide mode Speed Post No.EP800938911IN dtd 15.11.16 which was admittedly received by the complainant and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
8. The main plea of the Opposite Parties is that the complainant has purchased the policy after understanding its terms and conditions and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant was provided a free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policies, to cancel the policy in case there are any discrepancies in the policy. The Opposite Parties as per the regulation 8(1) and 19(1) (i) of the IRDA 9protection of Policy holder’s interest) Regulations, 2017 erstwhile clause 4(1) and 6(2) of the IRDA (Protection of Policy holder’s interest) Regulation, 2002 sent the policy documents vide mode Speed Post No.EP800938911IN dated 15.11.16 which was admittedly received by the complainant. Moreover, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the Opposite Parties have already paid the foreclosure amount of Rs.2168.70 paisa vide cheque No. 256485 dated 15.11.2019. On the other hand, the complainant has nowhere denied that she did not receive said speedpost envelop containing the policy in question alongwith its terms and conditions. Moreover, the complainant was given the entire knowledge about the terms and conditions and that being happily agreed and purchased the product, wherein it was clearly agreed upon that once the product is sold, can not be returned back and as such there will be no refund and this version has nowhere denied by the Complainant by filing any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that the Complainant never accepted such terms and conditions of the Opposite Party while purchase the policies in question. In this regard, we find force in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Agarwal Steel, 2009(4) CCC598 (SC), wherein it was observed that the person who signed the documents, there is presumption that he understood the document and only then he signed it specifically he is an educated person unless contrary is proved that it was obtained under some threat, pressure or coercion. It is well settled principle of law that the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, and none of the parties can seek any relief beyond those terms and conditions. In this regard reference may be made to the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd and another, 2011 CTJ 11 (Supreme Court) (CP) wherein the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur, held that:-
“22. Before embarking on an examination of the correctness of the grounds of repudiation of the policy, it would be apposite to examine the nature of a contract of insurance. It is trite that in a contract of insurance, the rights and obligations are governed by the terms of the said contract. Therefore, the terms of a contract of insurance have to be strictly construed, and no exception can be made on the ground of equity………..”
“24. Thus, it needs little emphasis that in construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount important, and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words. It is also well settled that since upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risk covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. Therefore, the endeavour of the court should always be to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties.”
The facts and circumstances of the instant case are fully attracted to Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd case (Supra). Same view has also been expressed by Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh in First Appeal No.485 of 2019 in case Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited, Versus Atma Singh, decided recently on 11.11.2021.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we found no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and hence, the instant complaint stands dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.
10. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State Government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:10.05.2022
