Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/209/2018

Gulshan Kumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Pankaj Maini

12 Dec 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/209/2018
Date  of  Institution	:	08/05/2018
Date   of   Decision	:	12/12/2018

 

 

 

 

 

Gulshan Kumari wife of Shyam Sunder Verma, aged 55 years, Resident of House No. 1106, Sector 26, Panchkula.

……… Complainant

 

Versus

 

[1]  Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Limited, through its Chief Operative Office Srinivasan Iyenger, Regd. Office H-Block, 1^st Floor, Dhiru Bhai Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra.

 

[2]  Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Limited, Customer Care Service, SCO 147-148, Madhya Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh, through Sh. Lalit, Customer Care head of Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Limited.

……. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. RATTAN SINGH THAKUR      PRESIDENT

SMT.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          DR. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For Opposite Parties	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

          Smt. Gulshan Kumari has filed this Consumer Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that on 23.08.2017 she took a Policy from the Opposite Parties after paying the requisite premium of Rs.50,232.10/-. However, the Opposite Parties never sent the Policy to the Complainant at her address and sent the same to a wrong address. When the Complainant approached Opposite Parties on 22.12.2017, she came to know that Policy was sent at a wrong address and wrong address has also been mentioned on the policy document. The Complainant was supplied a print out of the policy. Not satisfied with the Policy, the Complainant made a request to the Opposite Parties to cancel her Policy as her policy was within the free look period as she has not received the policy. However, the Opposite Parties refused to accept her genuine demand. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the Complainant has preferred the present Complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Parties in their joint reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that they had already refunded the premium amount of Rs.50,232/- to the Complainant, therefore, nothing is due against them. Thus, denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

5.      We have heard the Complainant in person and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties and also perused the record with utmost care and circumspection.

 

6.      The Opposite Parties in their defence have categorically submitted that there is nothing due against them since they had already refunded the premium amount of Rs.50,232/- to the Complainant.

 

7.      Admittedly, during the proceedings of this Consumer Complaint on 17.09.2018, the Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Parties handed over to the Complainant a Cheque bearing No. 014635 dated 13.08.2018 for an amount of Rs.50,232/- i.e. refund of the premium deposited by the Complainant.

 

8.      A perusal of the e-mail correspondence dated 23.01.2018 to 21.03.2018 appended with the Complaint makes it evidently clear that on 23.1.2018 being dissatisfied with the policy issued to her, the Complainant made a demand to the Opposite Parties to cancel her policy and to process her refund. However, the Opposite Parties chose to repudiate the genuine demand of the Complainant.

 

9.      Although the present Consumer Complaint has been filed on 08.05.2018, yet the Opposite Parties have offered to refund the premium deposited by the Complainant on 17.09.2018, which is much after filing of the instant complaint. Had, Opposite Parties been vigilant in refunding the amount promptly, complainant would not have been put to unnecessary harassment and mental tension, who otherwise had to knock at the door of this Forum for seeking redressal by expending money on litigation. So on account of inconvenience and expenditure incurred by the complainant, Rs.5,000/- would be just and reasonable to be awarded as compensation, along with cost of the present proceedings which are quantified as Rs.5,000/-.

 

10.      For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

[a]  To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment caused to her.

[b]  To also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

11.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [b].

 

12.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

12th Dec., 2018                                                                     

Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

       MEMBER

 

                                  Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

“Dutt”