Punjab

StateCommission

FA/1018/2013

Lakhwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sohal Lal Sharma and others - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Arora & Deepak Arora

05 Feb 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PUNJAB  DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

  First Appeal No.1018 of 2013

                                                        

             Date of institution  :    23.09.2013 

Date of decision     :    05.02.2015

 

Lakhwinder Singh S/o Lekh Raj, R/o House No.389, Village & Post Office Wander, District Moga.

…….Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      Sohan Lal Sharma, Deviwala Road, Street No.5, Kotkapura,   Agent Advisor, bearing Agent Code 13766, Max New York   Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Kotkapura, District Faridkot,           Phone:01635-262014.

 

2.      Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited, Operations   Center, 90A, Udyog Vihar, Sector-18, Gurgaon-122015        (Haryana).

 

3.      Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited, 12^th Floor,     DLF Square, Jacaranda Marg, DLF Phase-II, Gurgaon-     122022.

                                                          …Respondents/Opposite Parties 

First Appeal against the order dated 06.08.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot.

Quorum:- 

          Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.

                        Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.

                        Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:-

    For the appellant                        : Shri Sandeep Arora, Advocate.

    For respondents No.1 &2: Exparte.

    For respondent No.3      :   Sh. Amit Arora, Advocate.

 

JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH,  PRESIDENT :

 

                    This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ complainant against the order dated 06.08.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot (in short, “District Forum”), vide which the complaint filed by him, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”) for directing the respondents/opposite parties to refund the full premium amount of Rs.47,337-, along with interest, in respect of insurance policy No.254615099 (in short, “the policy”); and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing financial loss, harassment, inconvenience and mental agony to him, was dismissed.

1. As per the allegations, made in the complaint, Sohan Lal, opposite party No.1, who is the agent of other opposite parties and was personally known to the complainant, came to his house and persuaded him to take the policy and asked him to come to Kotkapura. Accordingly, he went to the office of opposite party No.1 and opted for the policy, under which the instalments of Rs.4,000/- were payable half yearly. He paid the first premium of Rs.5,000/- and the policy commenced with effect from 30.07.2005. The opposite parties promised that if he would pay the instalments/premiums regularly for five years, he would be entitled to take back the premium, along with interest. No terms and conditions were provided to him, nor the same were disclosed by the opposite parties. After completion of five years, he approached the opposite parties, who promised to make payment after one year. He again went to them in the month of December, 2011 and opposite party No.1 told him that it would take more time to make the payment. In September, 2012, he received a letter, in which it was mentioned that the revival period of three years of the policy had expired under R.P.U. scheme, upon which he went to the office of opposite party No.1 and was asked to come in the month of January, 2013 to collect the amount. When he went to that office for collecting the amount, no satisfactory reply was given. These acts of the opposite parties amounted to mal-practice and deficiency in service. In all, he deposited Rs.47,337/-, as the premium and that amount was to be refunded to him. On account of the non-refund thereof, he suffered inconvenience, mental agony, financial loss; for which he is entitled to Rs.50,000/-, as compensation.

2. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties, by filing written replies before the District Forum. Opposite party No.1, in its written reply, admitted that he is agent of opposite parties No.2 & 3 and that the policy in question was obtained by the complainant through him. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, he pleaded that the terms and conditions of the policy were delivered to the complainant by the Manager in his presence. The instalments were deposited by the complainant with those opposite parties and not with him. There was no deficiency in service or trade mal-practice on his part. No cause of action has accrued to the complainant to file this complaint against him. He prayed for the dismissal thereof.

3. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 filed joint written reply, in which they admitted that the complainant visited their office for subscribing the policy and paid Rs.5,000/-, as the first premium and upon payment of that premium, the policy in question was issued to him. They also admitted that the complainant could have surrendered the policy after five years. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, they pleaded that the policy was issued to the complainant, along with other documents, including the terms and conditions and as per those terms and conditions, he was provided a “Free Look Period” for 15 days, during which he could have returned the policy and the amount paid by him, as premium, was to be refunded. The complainant himself had signed the proposal form and was well aware of the fact that this policy was a whole life plan and not much benefit could have been given after five years, except the surrender value. No premium was paid after 30.07.2009 and, as such, the status of the policy was changed to “Reduce Paid Up” mode with effect from that date, as per non-forfeiture option, opted by the complainant in the proposal form. All these state of affairs were communicated to the complainant, vide letter dated 19.09.2012. The complainant never approached them for surrendering the policy in 2010 and no such commitment was ever made to him to make the payment under the policy. He is not entitled to the refund of the full premium, much less than Rs.47,337/-. He was duly informed that they have got only Rs.4,225/- and need a total reinstatement premium of Rs.3,998.36P to reinstate the policy. On 13.05.2010, he sent a request for reinstatement of the policy. He had full knowledge that his policy had gone into lapse mode and was not entitled to any such money; being demanded by him. As the signature of the complainant on the letter for reinstatement differed from his signature on the policy documents and he had not paid the shortfall in premium amount, so the policy was not reinstated and that fact was conveyed to him, vide letter dated 19.06.2010. There was no such mal-practice or deficiency in service on their part. They prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs; being false, frivolous, vague and vexatious, u/s 26 of the Act.

4. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, dismissed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that wrong findings were recorded by the District Forum, by ignoring the evidence produced by the complainant and by misreading the averments of the parties. Complainant specifically pleaded in his complaint that he had paid Rs.47,337/-, as premium and that fact was not denied by opposite parties No.2 & 3 in their written reply. Rather, they admitted the receipt of that premium. Inspite of that admission, it was wrongly concluded by the District Forum that only Rs.17,110/- were paid by the complainant as such. Even if such a finding had been arrived at by the District Forum, even then the complaint was to be allowed to that extent, by virtue of the terms and conditions of the policy, but it was dismissed. Such an order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

7. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for opposite party No.3 that correct findings were recorded by the District Forum on the basis of the evidence produced before it and the complaint was correctly dismissed, as the complainant was not entitled to the refund of the amount paid as premium.

8. The District Forum passed a sketchy and non-speaking order. It also wrongly excluded the affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-5, on the ground that the Notarial stamps are not affixed thereon, when the same purports to have been attested by the Notary. The same could not have been ignored on that ground. Even if it is assumed that reliance was not to be placed on the affidavit, even then the District Forum was required to take into consideration the admissions made by opposite parties No.2 & 3 in their written reply. The complainant specifically alleged in Para No.6 of the complaint that he had deposited Rs.47,337/-, as premium with those opposite parties. It was never specifically denied by them in their written reply that this amount was not so received. They themselves had written a letter dated 19.09.2012 Ex.R-18 to the complainant, in which they informed the complainant that the premium was not paid since 30.07.2009; as a result of which, the status of the policy was changed. Thus, according to them, the premiums were paid upto 30.07.2009. Once these opposite parties admitted the payment of the premium upto that date, the District Forum was required to calculate as to how much amount was payable as the premium upto that date. It came to the conclusion that the complainant had deposited only Rs.17,110/- by taking into consideration the receipts proved on the record while totally ignoring the other evidence; which consists of the above said letter and also the admission made by opposite parties No.2 & 3 in their written reply. In these circumstances, the order passed by the District Forum cannot be sustained. The District Forum did not deal with the other points raised in the complaint, though it was duty bound to deal with those points. The order passed by it, cannot be termed as an order, to be passed under the Act, as the same is not a speaking order. The findings have not been recorded on the points involved and no reasoning has been given therein for the finding arrived at by it. In these circumstances. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The complaint is remanded back to the District Forum, for deciding the same afresh on merits after going through the evidence produced by both the sides.

9. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 03.03.2015. Records be returned to the District Forum immediately.

10.           The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

     

     

     

                                                            (JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)

                                                                           PRESIDENT  

                                                             

     

     

                                                            (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)

                                                                             MEMBER

                                                             

     

     

                                                         (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR)

    February 05, 2015                                       MEMBER

    (Gurmeet S)