Delhi

North

CC/299/2024

PRAVEEN JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE NIPPON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD - Opp.Party(s)

01 Aug 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 299/2024

In the matter of

Praveen Jain

S/o Late Sh. N.C. Jain,

R/o 222, Vivekanand Puri,

Delhi-110007                                                ...                Complainant

Versus

Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

Through its Head-Opearations,

Mr. Saru Kaushal,

Unit Nos. 401B, 402, 403 & 404,

4th Floor, Inspire-BKC, G-Block,

BKC Main Road, Bandra Kurla Complex,

Bandra East, Mumbai-400051                ...                Opposite Party

 

ORDER

01.08.2024

Present: Shri. Nitesh Tiwari, Ld. Adv. for Complainant

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

1. On the last date of hearing, we heard the arguments of Shri J P Tiwari, Ld. Advocate for Complainant on the admissibility of the complaint and listed this matter today for orders.
2. Complainant has filed this complaint alleging unfair trade practice by M/s Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Ltd. (OP) and two telecallers, who represented themselves as officials of IRDAI. Complainant alleges that he received phone calls from one Mr Gupta (not a party) and Mr Mahinder Singh (not a party), who represented themselves as officers of IRDAI (Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India). Both these persons lured the Complainant in purchasing an insurance policy offered by OP Insurance Company by allegedly offering 35% to 40% return after 5^th year of the policy and promising full withdrawal option in the beginning of 6^th year. The Complainant accordingly purchased the policy on 30.10.2023. Once the Complainant received the policy booklet from OP Insurance Company, he did not find any such clause guaranteeing alleged 35% to 40% return after 5^th year and full withdrawal option at the beginning of 6^th year. The Complainant allegedly made attempts to contact Mr Singh and Mr Gupta, but he could not get any positive response. Thereafter the Complainant filed a police complaint with the Cyber Cell on 31.01.2024. He also sent a legal notice to OP on 31.01.2024, which was duly replied by OP on 30.04.2024. In the reply to the legal notice, OP informed the Complainant that policy cannot be cancelled as the Complainant has not approached the OP within the Free Look Period i.e. 15 days from the date of receipt of policy. Hence, the Complainant filed this complaint primarily seeking refund of the insurance premium and award of compensation.
3. We have heard the arguments of Ld. Advocate of Complainant and we enquired that whether the Complainant has contacted the OP Insurance Company during free look period or not.  In reply, he asserted that the Complainant contacted the persons through whom he purchased the policy. He had also placed on record certain message communications allegedly made with the persons who sold the policy to the Complainant. There is no document on record to suggest that the Complainant contacted the OP insurance Company.
4. We have heard the arguments and perused the record. From the records, it is seen that the insurance policy was issued by OP on 30.10.2023. The said policy booklet containing 40 pages including the policy Forwarding Letter, complete policy bongd, terms and conditions, and proposal form which was filled up and duly authenticated by way of OTP (One Time Password) generated for the purpose  of authentication of the policy proposal form. The Policy Forwarding Letter welcome clearly indicates that if the Policy Holder is not satisfied with the policy terms and conditions, he/she can ask for the cancellation of the policy within 15 days from the receipt of the policy and receive the amount which was paid as premium. The communication in this effect was to be made to the OP Insurance Company in writing. Admittedly there is no written communication by the Complainant to the OP insurance Company within the free look period.
5. It has also been argued that the Complainant being a lay man did not know about the free look period. This argument is not acceptable for two reasons. First the test of reasonable man applies and a reasonable man is not expected to be a lay man or ignorant person. On the test of reasonable man, the argument of the Complainant fails. Second, it has already been averred and pleaded in the Complainant that the Complainant did not find any mention of the alleged promised return of 35% to 40% at the end of 5^th year and the option of complete withdrawal from the policy at the beginning of 6^th year. This averment clearly indicates that the Complainant has read the policy documents including the policy terms and conditions completely and understood the same. Once the Complainant has read and understood the policy terms and conditions, it cannot be accepted that he did not understand the free-look period option. Ld. Advocate for Complainant and the pleadings in the Complaint, hence, could not convincingly explain that why the Complainant did not approach the OP Insurance Company for the cancellation of the policy within the free-look period.
6. On the aspect of allegations of mis-selling, except for mere allegations against one Mr Singh and Mr Gupta, there is no document on record to suggest that the Complainant was promised 35% to 40% return at the end of 5^th year of policy and option of complete withdrawal at the beginning of 6^th year of policy. If there is any iota of truth in the same, the same can only be proved by way of leading extensive evidences, examination and cross examination of the parties. In a complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the case is decided in summary proceedings in which leading of detailed evidences, examination and cross examination of parties is not permitted. In such a situation, where parties require leading of evidences and the examination and cross examination is necessary, the Complainant can approach the jurisdictional civil court.
7. At this stage, it is also mentioned here that it is a settled principle that once the Complainant has signed the proposal form, he shall be held responsible for all entries thereof. Even in cases where, the insurance agent gets the blank form signed by the Policy Holders, the policy holder himself is responsible for any consequences thereof. It is not the case of the Complainants that they have signed blank form or signed the forms without reading the same. In such an event, we are not convinced with the arguments of the Complainants and, prima facie do not find any deficiency of service on the part of OPs.
8. Hence, for the reasons that (i) there is no document or evidence on record to suggest that the policy was mis-sold to the Complainant; (ii) the Complainant has purchased the policy after filling up the proposal form and duly authenticating the same by sharing the OTP; and (iii) the Complainant has not contacted the OP Insurance Company within the permissible free-look period for cancellation of policy; we do not find any merit in this complaint. Accordingly, this complaint, being devoid of merit, is dismissed at admission stage itself.
9. Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

 

 

_________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

 

_________________________

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member

 

 

 

_________________________

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member