Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/28/2014

Rameshwar Kaushik S/o Bundi Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Star Health And Allies Insurance Company ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

P.K.Verma

27 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

 

                                                     Complaint No.28 of 2014.

                                                     Date of institution: 15.01.2014.

                                                     Date of decision: 27.10.2017.

Rameshwar Kaushik, aged 65 years, S/o Sh.Bundi Ram, r/o House No.329, MC Ward-20, Saraswati Colony, Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                 …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.257, IInd Floor, Sector-44-C, Chandigarh-160047.
2. Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Ltd., New Tank Street, Valluvar Kottam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034 through its General Manager. 

 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. SATPAL, PRESIDENT

                    SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                    SMT.VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. P.K.Verma, Advocate, for complainant.   

                  Sh. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate for the OPs.

               

                ORDER

         

(SATPAL, PRESIDENT)

                The complainant-Rameshwar Kaushik has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, as amended up to date (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs). 

2.             Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that an agent of Ops namely Ms. Shikha Batta allured the complainant for Senior Citizens Red Carpet Insurance Policy and under the impression of such allurement, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.20,225/- on account of one premium of above-said scheme and the insurance period of the scheme was 18.06.2012 to 17.06.2013.  It is alleged that after receipt of documents of above-said policy, the complainant came to know that the said policy will not be beneficial for the complainant, therefore, the complainant approached the Op No.1 through registered letter on 16.08.2012 and returned the policy papers to the Op No.1 and to refund the premium amount of Rs.20,225/- to the complainant but the Op No.1 neither refunded his amount nor gave reply to the letter of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to the Ops to refund the premium amount paid by the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and further to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation chargess.  Hence, this complaint.

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed their written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the Ops on the application of complainant just after two months of purchase of policy, for return of premium amount, have already returned a sum of Rs.10,112/- vide DD No.005485 dt. 07.01.2013 after deducting appropriate charges on pro-rata basis from the premium amount in terms of instruction of IRDA and condition No.15 specifically mentioned in the policy.  The complainant did not apply for cancellation of policy within free look period of 15 days.  Moreover, the complainant had already encashed that DD and received the said amount without any objection and the said fact has been concealed by the complainant from this Forum.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the pleas taken in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure-CW/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C5 and closed evidence on behalf of complainant. 

5.             On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. P.C.Tripathy, Zonal Manager as Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-RW1 & Annexure-RW2 and closed evidence on behalf of Ops.    

6.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.

7.             The foremost question which requires adjudication is whether the complainant exercised his option regarding the cancellation of the policy in question within free look period of 15 days from the receipt of the policy?

                The complainant has contended that he had informed the Op-insurance company about his intention not to continue the said policy and his intention is clear from his letter dt. 16.08.2012 written to the Op-company which is Annexure-C5. He has further contended that he has again written letter dt. 19.08.2012 (Annexure-C3) to the Ops-company whereby he clearly expressed his intention not to retain the policy.

                On the other hand, the Ops contended that the complainant did not apply for cancellation of the policy within the free look period of 15 days and that the complainant had already encashed the cheque of Rs.10,112/- without any objection and thus, the complainant is not entitled now to re-agitate the matter. 

8.             We have perused the letters dt. 16.08.2012 and 19.08.2012, which are Annexures C5 & C3 respectively written by the complainant to the Op company informing them that he had received the policy papers on 14.08.2012 through courier.  The complainant, vide said letter Annexure C-5, requested the Ops to refund the amount of Rs.20,225/-.  Similar request was made by the complainant vide his letter dt. 19.08.2012 (Annexure-C3).  During the hearing of the case and even earlier, the Ops have not rebutted the contents of letter dt. 16.08.2012 and 19.08.2012, Annexures C5 & C3 respectively and in the absence of any rebuttal on the part of Ops about the contents contained in aforementioned letters Annexures C5 & C3, this Forum can safely take the version of the complainant as true that he had exercised his option of cancellation of the policy within the free look period of 15 days.  Moreover, the Ops have not placed any cogent evidence before this Forum about the acceptance of the refunded amount of Rs.10,112/- by the complainant as full and final settlement and thus, the plea of the Ops is devoid of any force.  So, there is deficiency on the part of Ops.

9.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay the balance amount of Rs.10,113/- (i.e. Rs.20,225/- minus Rs.10,112/-) to the complainant and further to pay Rs.3300/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony as-well-as litigation charges.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.      

Announced in open court:

Dated: 27.10.2017.

                                                          (SATPAL)

                                                          PRESIDENT.

 

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)         (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                           MEMBER