Haryana

Karnal

CC/256/2017

Dalpat Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Exide Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Naveen Verma

01 Feb 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                          Complaint No. 256 of 2017

                                                          Date of instt. 03.08.2017

                                                          Date of Decision 01.02.2019

 

Dalpat Singh son of Shri Sadhu Ram resident of House no.74, Sector-6, Urban Estate Karnal Mobile no.9812003593.

                                                                       …….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

1. The Branch Manager, Exide Life Insurance, Sheela Shopee, First Floor, opp. Hotel Mid Town, near Sanjay Chowk, G.T. Road, Panipat (Haryana).

2. Exide Life Insurance com. Ltd. 3^rd Floor, JP Techno Park, no.3/1, Millers Road, Bengaluru-560001 through its Authorized Signatory.

                                                                                                                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri Naveen Verma Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Rohit Gupta  Advocate for OPs.

 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant purchased one policy on the advice of Advisor of the OPs in the month of December, 2015. The complainant had also deposited an amount of Rs.80,000/- in this policy. The complainant has approached many times to the Advisor/Agent of the company and requested to provide the policy document. But OPs always gave false assurance that it will be provided to the complainant at the earliest. He every times gave only policy no.03247207 to the complainant and every times postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant sent a letter on 03.01.2017 to the OP no.2 and then the complainant in this regard  sent a legal notice dated 1.2.2017 to the OPs and then the OPs have issued the copy of the policy dated 11.02.2017, which was received by the complainant on 19.02.2017.The complainant read over the policy documents and the complainant is not satisfied with the terms and conditions mentioned in the abovesaid policy. Due to un-satisfaction the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant written a registered letter dated 23.02.2017 to the OPs and requested to refund his amount of Rs.80,000/- alongwith interest which was deposited by the complainant in the abovesaid policy. Complainant again sent a legal notice through his counsel dated 17.0.3.2017 for demanding his amount but all in vain. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written version stating therein that Shri Dalpat Singh complainant submitted proposal form dated 19.12.2015 as a Proposer with OPs proposing for life insurance product named “Exide Life Guranteed Income Insurance Plan” in the name of Shri Anirudh Kadyan (Life Assured). Accordingly, based on the information and declaration provided by the complainant in the proposal forms OPs company issued the insurance policy bearing no.03247207 and sent the same alongwith covering letter dated 30.12.2015, vide registered post bearing no.RK487196975 IN. Date of Policy Commencement 27.12.2015, Date of Risk Commencement 27.12.2015, Premium payable Annually Rs.77,000/-, Premium payment term 10 years, policy term 20 years, Maturity date 22.12.2035 and sum assured Rs.5,77,510/-. As per Regulation 6(2) of Regulation 2002 issued by IRDAI, the policy holder/proposer is at liberty to review the terms and conditions of the policy and has the option to cancel the policy by stating the reason for his/her objection within 15 days of receipt of policy bond and these facts were clearly intimated in the welcome letter which was issued to the complainant alongwith the policy schedule and terms and conditions. However, as complainant had never sought for cancellation of both policies within freelook period (i.e. within 15 days.) Hence it is presumed that complainant is duly satisfied with the policies terms and conditions. Though above policy was received by the complainant, the complainant vide his request dated 10.02.2017 informed that he has not received the above policy and as such sought for duplicate copy of the policy. Accordingly, as a good will gesture OPs Insurance Company issued duplicate copy of above policy on 13.02.2017. It was made clear in the letter under NOTE that the free-look period clause is not applicable to the duplicate bond issued with this letter. Complainant vide his complaint dated 1.3.2017 alleged that the abovesaid policy was mis-sold to him and as such sought for cancellation of the policy and refund of Premium amount. It is pertinent to note that the cancellation of the policy was sought after the lapse of 15 months which falls very much beyond the freelook period of 15 days. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence on 23.04.2018.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and closed the evidence on 18.12.2018.

5.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant is that in months of December, 2015 on the advice of advisor of the OPs he purchased one policy and deposited an amount of Rs.80,000/-in this policy. The complainant has approached many times to the advisor/agent of the company and requested to provide the policy document. But they always gave false assurance that it will be provided at the earliest. Only policy number was provided by OPs. On 3.1.2017 complainant written a letter to the OP no.2 and then served a legal notice dated 1.2.2017. Then, OPs have issued the copy of policy dated 11.02.2017 which was received on 19.02.2017.

7.             Further complainant read over the terms and conditions of the policy and complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy. Due to un-satisfaction the terms and conditions of the policy complainant sent a registered letter dated 23.02.2017 to the OPs with request to refund his amount of Rs.80,000/- alongwith interest but OPs did not pay any heed. On the other hand, the case of the OPs is that complainant submitted proposal forms dated 19.12.2015 as a proposer with OPs insurance company proposing for life insurance product named “Exide Life Guaranteed Income Insurance Plan”- in the name of Shri Anirudh Kadyan. OPs issued the insurance policy and sent the same alongwith covering letter dated 30.12.2015 vide registered post and same was also received by the complainant. As per Regulation 6(2) of Regulation 2002 issued by IRDAI, the policy holder/proposer is at liberty to review the terms and conditions of the policy and has the option to cancel the policy by stating the reason for his/her objection within 15 days of receipt of policy bond (freelook period). Complainant had never sought for cancellation of both policies within freelook period. Hence complainant has no right to refund the premium amount.

8.             Admittedly, the complainant had taken the insurance policy bearing no.03247207 from OPs in the months of December, 2015 and paid Rs.80,000/- as premium amount. As per version of the complainant, policy documents not received till 19.02.2017. Complainant had approached many times to the OPs for the policy documents but agent of OPs always gave false assurance that it will be provided at the earliest. When the complainant sent letter dated 3.1.2017(Ex.C1) and legal notice dated 1.2.2017 (Ex.C3) then OPs have issued the copy of policy on 11.02.2017 and same was received on 19.02.2017. If the documents of policy was received within time, then why the complainant approached several time and wrote a letter and sent a legal notice to OPs. In support of his version complainant submitted his affidavit Ex.CW1/A.

9.             Further during the course of arguments complainant denied signature on acknowledgment (Ex.R3) his and their family members, OPs relived upon. In the acknowledgment (Ex.R3) no name has been mentioned of receiver of said documents. Hence in these circumstances, it cannot be presumed that documents and policy was delivered to the complainant.

10.            As per Regulation 6(2) of (Protection of Policyholder interest) Regulation 2002 issued by IRDAI, the policy holder proposer is at liberty to review the terms and conditions of the policy and has the option to cancel the policy by standing the reason for his/her objection within 15 days of receipt of policy bond (freelook period). In the present case the copy of policy was issued by OPs on 11.02.2017 and was received by complainant on 19.02.2017. Complainant sent application (Ex.C8) on 23.02.2017 to the OPs for cancellation of the policy, which is within freelook period. Hence, we are of the considered view that OPs are deficient in service.

11.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussions, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund the premium amount of Rs.80,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposition till its realization. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for mental agony and physical harassment and towards litigation expenses. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:01.02.2019

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

        (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member