BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR
Consumer Complaint No. : 93 of 01.10.2015
Date of decision : 18.04.2017
Harvinder Singh, son of Bhagat Singh, resident of House No.374, Ward No.3, Bassi Road, Morinda, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar (Pb.)
....Complainant
Versus
1. SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO No. 127-128, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, 160017 through its Manager
2. SBI Life Insurance Company, C/o State Bank of India Branch at Morinda, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar, through its Branch Manager
...Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER
ARGUED BY
Sh. Simranjit Singh Hira Advocate, counsel for complainant
Sh. R.S. Dyal Advocate, counsel for Opposite Parties
ORDER
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Harvinder Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ only) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
1) To refund the policy amount of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest i.e. 12% per annum from the date of its purchase till its realization.
2) To pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him,
3) To pay Rs.9000/- as litigation expenses.
2. In brief the case of the complainant is that the agent of the O.Ps. approached and requested him for purchase of a insurance policy from the O.Ps. On his request and as per his advice, he went to the office of the O.P. No.2 on 12.1.2015, for purchase of the insurance policy and paid Rs.1,50,000/-. The official of the O.Ps. told him that insurance policy would be sent at his residential address through post. He would be at liberty to get it cancelled, after going through the terms and conditions, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said policy. After waiting for 15/20 days, when he did not receive the policy documents, he approached the O.P. No.2. Then its official told him that due to some technical fault, original policy could not be sent to him by the insurance company. It will be sent to him within one and half month but when after lapse of two months, he did not receive any policy documents then he again approached and requested the O.P. No.2 for issuance of original insurance policy. The official of the O.P. No.2 told him that the original policy was sent at his address, two months ago. The said official had given wrong postal number and asked him to enquire about the policy documents from the post office. The official of the post office refused to give any information, he again approached and requested the O.P. No.2 for issuance of original policy. On 18.6.2015, he received a postal cover from the O.Ps. and on opening the same, he came to know that O.Ps. have sent a duplicate insurance policy instead of original one. After going through the insurance policy documents, he came to know that the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy were different from the terms and conditions which were explained to him by the O.Ps. at the time of purchase of the said policy. On 25.6.2015, he approached the O.P No.1 at Chandigarh and requested for cancellation of policy No.35080485802. On 25.6.2015, he received a letter from the O.Ps vide which they refused to cancel the policy and to refund the amount. Hence, this complaint.
3. Due to non appearance, the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 were proceeded against ex-parte by this Forum, vide its order dated 13.11.2015. The O.Ps. No.1 & 2 filed an appeal against the said order, which was allowed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, vide its order dated 15.09.2016, and has set aside the ex-parte order dated 13.11.2015, passed by this Forum, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-. The payment of cost shall be condition precedent for proceeding before the District Forum. The payment of Rs.10,000/- be made to the complainant in the shape of demand draft in the name of the complainant. In compliance of the order dated 15.9.2016, passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, on 12.10.2016, the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 have paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- as cost to the complainant and on 21.10.2016, have filed written version taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable before this forum for want of territorial jurisdiction; that the complainant have no territorial jurisdiction to file the present complaint; that the opposite parties have issued the policy on receipt of duly filled and signed proposal form from the policy holder complete in all aspects. Further, the policy holder has not raised any issues regarding the terms and conditions of the policy during the free look period and continued with the policy; that allegations made in the complaint requires a thorough investigation and examination and cross examination of witness, which are beyond the purview of this Hon’ble Forum; that the complainant did not approach the O.Ps. regarding the non receipt of the policy document after submission of the proposal form. The Policy bearing No.35080485802, as mentioned in the proposal form. The original policy bond was commenced on 12.1.2015 and same was dispatched at the registered address of the complainant has not been received back undelivered, hence presumed to have been delivered. Any prudent person will not keep quite for four months after investing the huge amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. He should have immediately approached the O.Ps. in the month of January 2015, if the policy documents were not received by him. The complainant made request for cancellation of the policy, after issuance of the duplicate policy and same has been rejected; that the duplicate insurance policy was issued as a goodwill gesture on the request of the complainant and there is no provision of free look period for cancellation of the policy after the receipt of the duplicate insurance policy. On merits, it is stated that they received a proposal form bearing No.35QG699138 dated 15.2.2014 from the complainant for purchase of insurance policy, SBI Life - Subh Nivesh Plan for a term of 7 years and paid Rs.1,50,000/- as a first premium. Accordingly policy bearing No.35080485802 dated 12.1.2015 was in favour of the complainant. It is stated that as per provision of the policy, the policy holder has an option to review the terms and conditions of the policy and can cancel the policy within free look period on receipt of policy documents. The original policy documents were sent through speed post POD NO.EA117065374IN on 17.1.2015, which were not received back undelivered, meaning thereby said documents have been delivered to the complainant. The request of the complainant for issuance of duplicate policy documents was accepted by the O.Ps, however, the request made vide letter dated 19.6.2015, for cancellation of the policy under free look option was rejected as there was no provision for cancellation of the policy after the receipt of the duplicate insurance policy. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, it being without any merit.
5. Rejoinder to the written version, has been filed by the complainant stating therein that the complaint filed by him is maintainable before this Forum because the complainant is the resident of Morinda and the agent of the O.Ps. approached him at his residence at Morinda and thereafter called him in the office of O.P. No.2. situated at Morinda for doing the needful for getting the insurance policy. All the transactions took place within the territory of Morinda, District Ropar, therefore, this forum has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. The O.Ps. did not send the original documents of the insurance policy and even had taken long time to issue the duplicate insurance policy. After the receipt of the duplicate insurance policy, he requested the O.Ps. for cancellation of the policy and also for refund of Rs.1,50,000/- i.e. premium amount. But the O.Ps. did not pay any heed to his request.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record, carefully.
7. At the outset, the learned counsel for the O.Ps raised a objection that this learned forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. To this effect, the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the complainant submitted his proposal form with the O.P. No.2 at Morinda, District Ropar. Even all the transactions were made at Morinda, therefore, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter.
8. From the record, it is apparent that the SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. is doing its business within territory of District Ropar. The cause of action has also arisen within the territory of District Ropar because the complainant has submitted his proposal form at Morinda. Therefore, as per section 11 (2) (a) of the Act, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter and the objection raised by the learned counsel for the O.Ps. is not sustainable. Hence, rejected.
9. On merits, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant purchased an insurance policy on 12.1.2015, by paying premium amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. After waiting for some time, when he did not receive the policy documents, then he made a request to the O.Ps. to send the original policy documents. On 18.06.2015, the O.Ps. instead of sending the original policy documents, had sent a duplicate insurance policy to him. After receipt of the said documents, he requested the O.Ps. for cancellation of policy and refund of the premium amount but the O.Ps. refused to accept his request. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the O.Ps submitted that the original policy documents were sent to the complainant on 17.01.2015, through speed post – EA117065374IN as is evident from the copy of the dispatch Ex.OP7. The said documents were never returned back by the postal authority to it, thus, it is deemed to have been delivered to the complainant. On 28.5.2015, on receipt of the indemnity bond for issuance of duplicate policy Ex. OP5, a duplicate insurance policy was issued to the complainant. Therefore, the allegation of the complainant that the they had issued the duplicate policy on their own, gets falsified. Since, the complainant made a request for cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium amount, after the receipt of the duplicate policy documents and not after the receipt of the original policy documents, therefore, as per terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant is not entitled to get the refund of the premium amount because the free look period for cancellation of the policy was available to him, after the receipt of the original insurance policy and not after the receipt of the duplicate policy. No doubt, the O.Ps. have placed on record the copy of the dispatch register, Ex.OP7 in order to show that they dispatched the insurance policy to the complainant on 17.1.2015, but from the said document, it cannot be inferred that the policy documents actually had been received by the complainant. Even the plea of the O.Ps. that it has not received back the undelivered documents, therefore, it is deemed that the same has been received by the complainant, is also not sustainable because even if we believe the contention of the O.Ps. that the they have not received back the policy documents undelivered, even then it can only be presumed that the complainant might have received the policy documents, but certainly, it cannot be said that the said documents have been received by the complainant. No other document has been placed on record by the O.Ps. to prove that the documents pertaining to original insurance policy had been received by the complainant, which they dispatched on 17.1.2015. Thus, in the absence of cogent and convincing evidence, we hold that the O.Ps. have failed to prove that the complainant has duly received the original policy documents. Facing with this situation, we are of the view that the complainant is not only entitled to get the refund of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest, but is also entitled for compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him along with litigation expenses.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the O.Ps. in the following manner:-
1. To refund Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 7% per annum from 25.06.2015 i.e. the date of refusal of cancellation of policy till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
The O.Ps. are further directed to comply with the order within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
11. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules. The file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED (NEENA SANDHU)
Dated 18.04.2017 PRESIDENT
(SHAVINDER KAUR)
MEMBER
