DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 716/2015
D.No._______________________ Dated: ________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
ARUN KUMAR SODHI,
S/o LATE SH. DWARKA NATH SODHI,
R/o 2/A, AYODHYA ENCLAVE,
SECTOR-13, ROHINI, DELHI-110085. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
SHRI RAM LIFE INS. Co. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGER,
GD-ITL TOWERS, B-8, 12th FLOOR,
1203, NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE,
PITAM PURA, DELHI-110034.
ALSO AT: REGD. & ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE:
THROUGH ITS M.D./CEO,
3-6-478, ANAND ESTATES, 3rd FLOOR,
LIBERTY ROAD, HIMAYAT NAGAR,
HYDERABAD-500029. … OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM: SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 15.07.2015
Date of decision: 10.02.2020
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OP under Section 12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant purchased the insurance policy bearing no. NP-131200065578 from OP on 28.08.2012 in the name of his son namely Sh. Alok Sodhi after paying Rs.99,000/- and the
CC No.716/2015 Page 1 of 8
complainant was allured by the agent of OP to purchase the policy on phone calls from OP under wrong and hyperbolic benefits and claims and he was assured that the accumulated amount and insurance amount would be credited to his account at the earliest. The complainant further alleged that the agent of OP who allured and forced to purchase the insurance policy from OP was with full of information about his personal and professional condition and situation and he represented about the insurance policies but false and fabricated claims and assurances and hence under impression of the claims of the agent of OP he purchased the policy. Thereafter, the complainant did not receive any benefit from OP within time as claimed and assured by the agent of OP and no amount was credited in the account of the complainant and more over no insurance policy issued to the complainant, then the agent of OP informed that the insurance policy has been issued at postal address and the policy no. NP-131200065578 but when the complainant opposed the fact that neither any policy has been received by the complainant nor any benefit credited in his account they began to create pretext and after that the agent began to ignore the phone calls of the complainant and some of the phone calls were made to the complainant in the name of officer of the IRDA. The complainant further alleged when the complainant did not find any satisfactory answer/reply from the agent of OP, the complainant visited the office of OP and prayed to cancel the policy
CC No.716/2015 Page 2 of 8
and return his hard earned money but was flatly refused to cancel the policy and refund the amount of Rs.99,000/- saying that the free look period of 15 days lapsed and the complainant has not received any insurance policy. The complainant further alleged that the complainant kept on requesting and complaining to OP personally, telephonically and through written letters lastly on 30.06.2014 but OP did not take proper action on the request and complaint and hence OP’s act and omission is clearly unfair trade practice and the complainant wrote letters but no proper reply, finally the complainant approached to the Ombudsman but could not get relief and the Ombudsman gave liberty to file a fresh complaint to any Forum or Court on 10.02.2015. The complainant further alleged that the said act done by OP is clearly the violation of law and has caused great mental tension pain, agony, harassment, inconvenience and loss to the complainant which clearly shows the deficiency in service on the part of OP.
2. On these allegations the complainant filed the complaint praying for direction to OP to refund the total amount of Rs.99,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. as well as compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental, physical pain, agony and harassment and has also sought Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. OP has been contesting the case and filed written statement and submitted that the complainant had applied for insurance policy for himself by submitting a proposal forms and by paying the proposal
CC No.716/2015 Page 3 of 8
deposit amount and after underwriting the proposal, a policy was issued covering the life of the complainant bearing policy no. NP- 131200065578 under the plan ‘Shri Life’, commencing from 28.08.2012 for sum assured amount of Rs.14,58,000/- for a term of 15 years with an annual premium of Rs.98,955/- payable for a period of 15 years. OP further submitted that the complaint is clearly and hopelessly time barred, qua the insurance policy in question in view of the Provisions of Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, pursuant to which the Consumer Forum shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen and the insurance policy was issued on 31.08.2012 to the complainant and the cause of action had accrued when the said insurance policy was issued and received by the complainant in September-2012 and therefore the period of limitation for filing the present complaint in respect of the said policy expires latest by September-2014 and the period of limitation cannot be extended under any circumstances till July-2015 when the present complaint was actually filed by the complainant. OP further submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder to written statement of OP and denied the submissions of OP.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant placed
CC No.716/2015 Page 4 of 8
on record copy of letter dated 31.12.2012 sent by the complainant to OP regarding freelook/cancellation of insurance policy no.NP- 131200065578 for Rs.99,000/- dated 28.08.2012 issued in the name of Alok Sodhi proposer Arun Kumar Sodhi, copy of letter dated 04.01.2013 sent by OP to the complainant about the complaint received against policy no. NP- 131200065578, copy of letter dated 21.01.2013 sent by the complainant to the Grievance Redressal Officer of OP for cancellation of policy due to cheating/misguiding policy no. NP-131200065578 issued on 28.08.2012 for a sum of Rs.99,000/-, copies of replies dated 28.01.2013 & 29.01.2013 sent by OP to the complainant about the complaint in IGMS vide Ref. No. 01-13- 029973 for cancellation of policies, copy of e-mail communication dated 05.03.2013 sent by the complainant to OP, copy of notice dated 30.06.2014 sent by the complainant to OP alongwith copy of Courier receipts, copies of letter dated 08.05.2014, 08.08.2014 & 30.08.2014 regarding requesting for policy cancellation, copy of letter dated 10.02.2015 sent by Ombudsman to the complainant and copy of ration card of the complainant.
6. On the other hand, Sh. E. Sridhar, Assistant General Manager of OP filed his affidavit in evidence which is on the basis of the written statement of OP. OP also filed copy of Non-ULIP policy Schedule, copy of First Premium receipt and copy of Courier receipt. OP has also filed written arguments.
CC No.716/2015 Page 5 of 8
7. During the course of argument, Ld. Counsel for OP relied on following authorities/case laws:
i) Revision Petition No. 634 of 2012 in case entitled Shrikant Murlidhar Apte Vs. LIC of India decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 02.05.2013.
ii) Civil Appeal No. 2080 of 2002 in case entitled Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. & ANR. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 01.04.2009.
iii) In case entitled Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Sony Cheriyan decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 19.08.1999.
8. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record by the parties. The testimony of the complainant has remained consistent and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. The onus is on OP to prove the defence that the policy document alongwith terms & conditions of the policy has been delivered to the complainant. OP has failed to prove on record any document to show that the policy document alongwith terms & conditions of the policy has been delivered to the complainant. Moreover, OP has not disputed the fact that the complainant vide his complaint dated 21.01.2013 has requested for cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium amount. Furthermore, OP in its letter dated 29.01.2013 has observed that “we once again reiterate that at this juncture we will not be able to accept your request for the policy cancellation and request you to continue the policy by paying your premiums on time to enjoy the long term investment benefits”.
CC No.716/2015 Page 6 of 8
9. Thus, in view of above stand of OP taken vide letter dated 29.01.2013, OP cannot be permitted to take the defence of 15 days freelook period as OP has failed to prove the document showing receipt of policy bond by the complainant and thus the defence taken by OP has no merits and the case laws relied on by OP are not applicable to the facts & circumstances of the present case. As regards, the other raised by OP that the complaint is barred by period of limitation is of no merits in the facts & circumstances of the case as the complainant has been writing various letters to OP to refund the premium amount and has also filed petition before Ombudsman which was disposed off vide order dated 09.02.2015. So, it cannot be said that the complaint is barred by period of limitation.
10. In the light of above discussion, we are of opinion that OP ought to have refunded the premium amount to the complainant after cancellation of the policy as prayed by the complainant. Failure on the part of OP to cancel the policy and refund the amount of premium to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by OP and OP is held guilty accordingly.
11. Accordingly, OP is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.99,000/- being the premium amount paid by the complainant.
CC No.716/2015 Page 7 of 8
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.40,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.
12. The above amount shall be paid by OP to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP fails to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
13. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 10th day of February, 2020.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.716/2015 Page 8 of 8
UPLOADED BY : SATYENDRA JEET
