BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Paramjit Kaur aged about 49 years wife of Sh.Jaspal Singh, resident of Village & Post Office Mataur, Sector 70, Mohali, Tehsil and District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1]  The Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Ltd. Head Office, Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opposite Golf Course, DLF Phase V, Sector 43, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Managing Director.

2]  The Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Ltd. Branch Office: SCO No.181-82, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.                                ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                  PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL       MEMBER

         DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Jaspal Singh, Authorised Representative of             complainant.

          Sh.Arun Dogra, Counsel for OPs.     

PER P.D. GOEL, PRESIDENT

1]       In short, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a life insurance policy for a sum assured of Rs.1,87,500/- against annual premium of Rs.25,000/-.  According to the complainant, she deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- as premium with the OPs on 25.3.2008.  It is further the case of the complainant that despite of completion of all formalities, the OPs failed to deliver the certificate of policy document.  The complainant submitted a request letter dated 10.6.2008 followed by reminder dated 01.7.2008 for cancellation of the insurance policy and also for refund of an amount of Rs.25,000/-. It is the allegation of the complainant that the OPs instead of cancelling the policy sent a premium notice dated 16.2.2009 for depositing the second installment of the premium.  It is further the case of the complainant that she had already made a request to cancel the policy and also sent a reminder dated 01.7.2008 but all in vain. She neither received any policy document nor refund of the amount, hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2]       The OPs filed the joint reply. While admitting the factual matrix of the case, they pleaded that the complainant signed the proposal form after understanding the terms & conditions and implication of the policy.  The policy in question was taken in March, 2008.  The original document along with other material was received by the complainant on 28.3.2008 vide Speed Post AWB No.EH43260833IN.  It is denied that the original policy documents were not received by the complainant.

3]          It is pleaded that the complainant was well aware that the period of exercising free look option was 15 days and not 3 months.  The complainant was also aware about the terms & conditions of the policy.  If she was not satisfied, she had the option of “right to Reconsider” and thereafter make a request for cancellation of the policy within 15 days from the receipt of the policy document, which she has failed to opt within the stipulated period, therefore, the policy in question could not be cancelled.  Denying all the allegations made in the complaint, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.       

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]       We have heard the authorized representative of complainant and learned counsel for the OPs and have also perused the record.

6]      The grievance of the complainant is that the OPs failed to deliver the certificate of policy document, whereas the OPs have raised the plea that the original policy documents along with other material was received by the complainant on 28.3.2008 vide Speed Post AWB No.EH43260833IN.

7]      Now, the only question, which calls determination from this Court is whether the original policy document was received by the complainant on 28.3.2008.  The answer to this question is in negative. The OPs have raised a specific defence and plea that the original documents along with other material was received by the complainant on 28.3.2008. To prove the said fact and assertion, the OPs have not produced any evidence.  There is no evidence on the file that the said Speed Post AWB No.EH43260833IN was ever received or reached to the complainant.

8]       Now, it is proved on record that the original policy document along with other material was not received by the complainant.  Therefore, the OPs are estopped from raising the plea that the complainant was well aware that the period of exercising the free look period option was 15 days.  The OPs are further estopped from raising the defence that the complainant was in know the terms & conditions of the policy as the policy along with documents did not reach to him.

9]       It is a settled proposition of law that the insurance company can take the advantage of terms & condition of the policy, if the same are duly communicated and explained to the insured.  Reliance placed on M/s Modern Insulators Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., I(2000) CPJ 1 (SC).

10]      As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.25,000/- along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days, failing which they shall be liable to pay the amount of Rs.45,000/- along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of order till realization besides paying litigation cost.

11]      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned after compliance.