Punjab

Sangrur

CC/139/2018

Rajdeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Star Union Daiichi Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.S.S.Mann

08 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

 

                                                                       Complaint No. 139

Instituted on:    19.03.2018

                                                                       Decided on:      08.04.2019

 

Rajdeep Singh aged about 33 years son of Sh. Baldev Singh, resident of # 44, Ward No.2, Sangrur.

 

                                                        …. Complainant.       

                                         Versus

 

1.     Star Union Daiichi Life Insurance, SF-1, Second Floor, Kumar Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana through its Territorial Head.

2.     Bank of India, Near DC Office,  Branch Sangrur through its Manager.

             ….Opposite parties

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:      Shri P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate                          

FOR OP No.1                      :      Shri S.M.Goyal, Advocate.

FOR OP No.2                      :      Ms.Rajni Gandhi, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum

         

                   Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member

                    Manisha, Member

 

ORDER:   

 

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member

 

1.             Shri Rajdeep Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is maintaining a saving bank account bearing number 650510110007668 with the OP number 2 and that the OP number 2 has a tie up OP number 1 i.e. Star Union Daiichi Life Insurance Ludhiana for sale of insurance policies. At that time the complainant took an insurance policy, which covers the life insurance of the complainant under which the premium was payable at Rs.50,000/- per year for five years.  The complainant paid the first premium of Rs.50,000/- on 9.8.2016 through his above said account, but the grievance of the complainant is that the Ops failed to supply the insurance policy to the complainant despite his best efforts and approaching the Ops time and again.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 9.8.2016 till realization and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the policy in question and executed proposal form to the OP number 1 and accordingly policy number 00991134 was issued on 11.8.2016 under which premium was Rs.48,584/- and the policy in question was sent to the complainant vide POD number ED123916075IN on 20.8.2016. Further it is further mentioned that the OP number 1 received a legal notice dated 22.12.2017 from the complainant wherein it was clearly stated that the complainant had not availed the right to cancel the said policy and did not make any written request for the same within stipulated period and consequently the said policy was lapsed. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.             In the written reply filed by OP number 2, legal objections are taken up on the ground that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has concealed material facts from this Forum. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of OP number 2 and that the bank has a tie up with the OP number 1, but OP number 2 has no knowledge about the insurance of the complainant. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/2 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.Op2/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have given a thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the parties have not produced written arguments. 

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant got the guaranteed money back insurance policy from OP number 1 and paid first premium of Rs.50,000/- on 9.8.2016 and the OP number 2 has a tie up with the OP number 1.  The complainant received a text message from OP number 1 regarding issuance of policy on his mobile phone. The complainant has alleged that he did not receive the hard copy of above policy inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant to Ops and the agent of OP number 1.  The OP number 1 in the reply has submitted that the said policy was received by the complainant vide POD number ED123916075IN on 20.8.2016, but did not place on record any document to substantiate its claim.  The complainant has submitted a request on 27.9.2017 through the Bank of India, Sangrur to Star Union Daiichi Life Insurance Ludhiana regarding no policy related documents were handed over to the complainant and requested to OP number 1 to refund the amount so deposited.  The same request was sent to the opposite party number 1, but no reply was given to the complainant.

 

7.             In reply to the legal notice dated 22.12.2017 sent by the OP number 1 to the complainant, the OP number 1 in his reply has  stated that the policy clearly states that in case the policy holder did not agree with any of the provisions stated in the policy or policy details, then he had the option of returning the policy to the company  within 15 days from the receipt of the policy and the complainant had the option to return the original policy document along with the written request to cancel the said policy within the stipulated time of 15 days. It is pertinent to mention here that how the complainant could request the OP number 1 for the cancellation of the policy within the stipulated period as mentioned above when he did not receive the original policy along with the documents. As such, the question of requesting the Ops to cancel the policy does not arise at all.

 

8.             In view of the above discussion, we find that the OP number 2 is deficient in rendering services for not supplying the policy and policy documents and not properly following up with the OP number 1 for the supplying of the above documents to the complainant. Ops are, therefore, directed to refund Rs.50,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from 9.8.2016 till realization.  The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses.  The responsibility of the Ops shall be joint and several.   This order of ours be complied with within forty five days of its communication.  Copies of the orders be sent to the parties free of cost and there after file be consigned to record room.

                        Pronounced.

                        April 8, 2019.                                    

                                                          (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                             Presiding Member

 

 

 

                                                                (Manisha)

                                                                  Member