DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Heshma Mongia d/o Subhash Chander r/o #187/2, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

1.                 Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 41-42, 2^nd Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160009 through its Branch Manager.

2.                 Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Delphi-B-Wing, 2^nd Floor, Orchard Avenue, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai-400076 through its Managing Director.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for the complainant

                        Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Proxy counsel for Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OPs.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Ms. Heshma Mongia has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs :-

i)                   to cancel the policy and refund the amount of Rs.75,000/-

ii)                to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation;

iii)              to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that the agent of the opposite parties approached her father and offered an investment plan.  He represented that as per the investment plan, the complainant is required to make one time payment of Rs.75,000/-.  He also assured that the complainant shall get assured returns of at least 30% every quarter. Accordingly, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the opposite parties and policy (C-1)  was issued on 22.2.2011.  According to the complainant, the said policy was received on 1.7.2011 and immediately, on 9.7.2011, she requested for its cancellation vide email (C-3) but nothing was done.  In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           The opposite parties in their written statement denied that the policy in question was a one time investment or that it was to give assured return of 30% every quarter to the complainant.  It has been averred that the policy in question was issued on 22.2.2011, depatched on 25.2.2011 through Blue Dart Courier and delivered to the complainant on 25.2.2011.  It has been pleaded that the complainant approached them on 9.6.2011 with the request to cancel the policy but the same was declined being beyond the free look period. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record, including written arguments. 

5.                           According to the ld. Counsel, the complainant received the policy on 1.7.2011 and immediately, on 9.7.2011, she requested for its cancellation vide Annexure C-2.  Annexure C-2 is the e-mail vide which the complainant’s father requested for the cancellation of the policy.  It is dated 9.7.2011.  A perusal of the same shows that this e-mail does not mention anything about the date of receipt of the policy.  On the other hand, the specific stand of the opposite parties is that the policy was delivered to the complainant vide Blue Dart Courier on 25.2.2011 and the complainant for the first time requested for cancellation on 9.6.2011.  However, as the request was made beyond the free look period of 15 days, therefore, the same was not entertained.  No other document has been placed on record by the complainant to prove that the policy was received in July 2011.  Therefore, mere bald assertions, without any cogent documentary proof in support thereof, would be of no help to the case of the complainant.  The Complainant was required to exercise her right to opt for cancellation of the policy within 15 days of the receipt of policy.  Apparently, the said option was exercised after the free look period of 15 days. Therefore, the request for cancellation could not have been entertained.

6.                           Resultantly, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 

7.                           In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.  

8.                           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

23.4.2013.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER