Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/488/2023

VIKRAM JOSHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

20 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/488/2023
Date of Institution	:	9/10/2023
Date of Decision	:	20/11/2024

 

1. Vikram Joshi age about 71 years son of Late Sh. Vasudeva Joshi R/o HNO. 1788. Phase 5. Mohali since deceased through his legal heirs namely:

 

1. Natasha Mehta wife of Sh. Shammi Mehta daughter of Late Sh. Vikram Joshi resident of H. NO. 1788, Phase 5, Mohali (First Class Legal Heir).
2. Viren Joshi son of Late Sh. Vikram Joshi resident of H. NO. 1788, Phase 5, Mohali. (First Class Legal Heir)

 

2. Jagmeet Singh age 40 years son of S. Harjinder Singh R/o # HM 36, Phase 4, Mohali.

Complainants

Versus

 

1. Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company (formerly known as Reliance Life Insurance Company NO. (Reg NO. 121) Regional & Branch office atSCO No. 123-124, 2^nd  Floor, Sector 17/C. Chandigarh- 160017 through itsBranch manager

2. Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company (formerly known as Reliance Life Insurance Company NO (Reg NO. 121) registered office H Block.1^st Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani knowledge City. Nabvi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400710 through its Executive Director Cum CEO, Ashish Vohra

3. Indiafirst Life Insurance Company. Office No. 3, 2^nd Floor, Berkeley's Square, Plot NO. 24, Industrial Area. Phase 1, Chandigarh-160002 through its Branch Manager

4. Indiafirst Life Insurance Company Limited Regd & Corporate office: 12^th  and 13^th  Floor, North (C) Wing. Tower-4, Nesco IT Park, NESCO Center, Western Express Highway, Goregaon, (East) Mumbai-400063 through its Managing Director/CEO R. M Vishakha.

Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Jatin Khullar, Advocate for the complainant.
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for OPs.

Per surjeet kaur, Member

     Briefly stated It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that in the first week of August 2018, the complainant no. 1 had received a call from a person namely Manish Goel claiming himself as the Manager from IRDA and told the complainant no. 1 that the complainant no 1 is having irregular pension from LIC under LIC Group policy which was purchased by Ranbaxy from LIC and if the complainant no. 1 wants to get the pension in lump-sum then he has to purchase the Reliance Nippon Life Insurance policy of Rs 48,501/ in his name or in the name of any family member of the complainant no. 1 and the same will be merged with the Pension of LIC and under the allurement and assurance given by Manish Goel, the complainant no. 1 had purchased the policy of Reliance Nippon Life Insurance company in the name of his son Viren Joshi and paid the premium of Rs 48,501/- to Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company and it was told to the complainant no. 1 that he has to pay premium for only two years (including first premium) and on the completion of third year, the complainant no. 1 will get the sum assured amount of Rs 2,50,000/- approximately along with pension of LIC in lump-sum. On 17.09.2020, the complainant no. 1 again received a call of agent namely Manish Goel who told the complainant no. 1 that there was objection in processing of the LIC pension plan as such he has to purchase one more policy on the same terms and conditions of the first policy to get the LIC pension in lum sum and he assured the complainant no. 1 that he will get the sum assured amount of Rs 5,00,000/- approximately along with pension of LIC in lump-sum. Under his allurement and assurance, the complainant no. 1 had purchased the another policy of Reliance Nippon Life Insurance company and paid the premium of Rs.1,49,000/- through debit card of IDBI Bank to Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company. Further the said agent again called the complainant no. 1 telephonically and told him that the process of LIC pension plan in lum-sum is near completion and he asked for the guarantor and he told the complainant no. 1 to get three policies in the name of guarantor for completing the process of LIC pension plan in lum-sum. The complainant no. 1 being the old age person trusted the above named agent Manish Goel and requested the friend of complainant namely Jagmeet Singh son of Harjinder Singh for becoming his guarantor. Under the allurement and assurance of Manish Goel, the complainant no. 1 had purchased three policies in the name of his friend Jagmeet Singh for becoming the guarantor of complainant no. 1 and paid the premium of all the three policies from his IDBI bank account. It is alleged that the complainants have not received the policies from OPs No. 1 to 4 till date and contacted the  agent Manish who told the complainant NO.1 to purchase one more policy in his name or in the name of his family member for two years. The complainant again purchased a policy by paying premium of Rs.98,000/-. The complainant No.1 had also paid second premium of all the policies. It is alleged that the complainant No.1 enquired from OPs No. 1 to 4 about the policies and he was informed  that the tenure  of the premium payment of the policies are 10 years and the sum assured  would be given to the complainants after 15 years at the time of maturity. Shocked with the same the complainant contacted the agent Manish Goel who did not pick the phone of complainant No.1. The complainant also sent written request to the OPs but nothing was done. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP/s. OP was/OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1&2 in their reply stated that the Complainants failed to approach the answering OPs for cancellation/refund of the premium within the free-look period of 15 days from receipt of the policy as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Further, the Complainants have also failed to pay the renewal premium on the due dates. The Complainants had paid only two premiums under policies in question therefore, due to non-payment of renewal premium, the said policies acquired "Paid-up" status. The Complainants also failed to revive the policies in question within the revival period. Thus, any benefit under the policies in question shall be paid as per the paid-up clause under policy terms and conditions. Therefore, there is no deficiency in services or unfair trade practice on the part of the answering Opposite Party. The complainants were well aware of the policy terms as under the premiums receipts, annexed by the Complainant with the Complaint copy, the premium payment term and policy term is clearly mentioned which clearly indicates that the Complainant's were well aware of the premium paying term under the policies in question. Further, the Complainant no. 1 had never disclosed about the disability of the Life assured under the proposal form nor provided any disability certificate of Life assured at proposal stage. The said fact was brought to the notice of the answering OPs after the payment of the second premium vide complaint letter dated 12.09.2023 and the request for the cancellation of the policies in question were rejected by the answering opposite party as till that period the complainant's had already enjoyed the life cover under the policies in question. The insurance being a contract between the policy holder and the Company, and both the parties are governed by the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy document and all the benefits are payable as per policy terms. Denying any deficiency on its part all other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. OP No.3&4 in their reply stated that the Policyholder had full knowledge of the terms and conditions of the Policy. The company has received premium amount from the Life assured and based on the proposal form and other relevant documents and information provided by the Life Assured, the Company had accepted proposal form for granting insurance cover and issued policy in accordance with the proposal form and benefit illustration. As per Clause 10(1) (i) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholder's Interests) Regulations, 2017, every policy document sent to the Policyholder by the Company is to be accompanied by a welcome letter which clearly mentions that in case policyholder is not satisfied with the features or the terms and conditions of the policy he can withdraw/return the policy under the "Free Look Period" provision as per Clause 8(1) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholder's Interests) Regulations 2017. The policies were delivered to the complainant. It is further submitted that despite receipt of the policy document, the Life Assured never approached the Company with any request for free look cancellation thereby implying that the terms and conditions of the subject policy were acceptable to him. The Answering OPs would further like to submit that it is not the case of the Complainant that the risk was not covered for the period for which the premiums had been paid. In view of the same the risk stood covered for the period for which premiums had been paid and hence there is no question of refund of any premium amounts. It is submitted that the Policy Holder has paid three annual premiums under the policy and presently the policy is in force and will be governed as per the policy terms and conditions. It is important to inform that, the subject policy has been issued to the Policy Holder in accordance with the details filled in the proposal form and only after the receipt of the subscription premium amount. Furthermore all the policy features, terms & conditions were clearly explained/mentioned in the policy contract, moreover if the applicant had any grievance/dis-satisfaction regarding the subject policy then he could have approached the answering OP within the stipulated free look period as stated in the policy contract. Now the complainant has taken a completely contradictory stand vide the present complainant. He has cooked up a false and frivolous story in order to mislead this Commission. Denying any deficiency on their part a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The complainants through the present complaint have prayed for the claim amount of various policies from the OPs which as per complainant were sold by them by misrepresentation. Perusal of Annexure C-3 shows that the complainant No.1 is an educated person retired from Ranbaxy Laboratory as Associate Director. Annexure C-4  is the initial premium deposit receipt according to which the complainant paid an amount of Rs.48501/-  to the Ops No.1&2 wherein it is mentioned that  the policy  term is of 15 and premium terms as 10  which itself indicates that the complainants were aware  of the whereabouts of the policy term, therefore, the allegations of the complainants that they have to pay only two premium seems to be false and hollow  in the absence of any strict proof to the same.
8. The details of the terms and conditions of the policy and receiving of various policies by the complainants have been annexed as Annexure R-2. Annexure R-3  is the email sent by complainant No.1 which indicates that  the complainant No.1 was willing to discontinue with the policy and requested for the refund of the premium amount but later on getting motivated by the product in question he invested further in various  other policies which is evident from Annexure R-4 as the complainant requested the OPs that he is agreed with the terms and conditions and want to withdraw the cancellation request i.e. Annexure R-3.  Hence, the complainant was very much aware  about his investment  for buying the product in question. 
9. In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the complainant being well qualified person has purchased the policy from the OPs after duly  understanding terms of the policies,  and he cannot claim that the OPs have mis-sold the policies to him. Thus, there is no merit in the complaint and the complainant failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the OPs.
10.  In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.

			[Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
20/11/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member