Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/571/2014

Rajwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The DLF now DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok VErma & Navneet Singh Sodhi

22 Jun 2015

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/571/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	27/08/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	22/06/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Rajwinder Singh son of Harcharan Singh, resident of 29/430, Street No.9, Jamlat Singh Road Moga, Now residing at Quarter No.3, Back Side Gurudwara JLPL, Sector 82, Mohali.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

[1]  The DLF now DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance Company Limited, 4^th Floor, Building No.9, Tower-B, Cyber City, DLF City Phase-III, Gurgaon, through its authorized signatory.

 

[2]  The DLF now DHFL Group Company Limited, (DLF now DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance Company Limited), SCO 335-336, First & Second Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its authorized signatory.

 

[3]  The DLF now DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance Company Limited, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its Executive Vice President Sh. Vishal Chopra.

 

[4]  Chartered Insurance Broker Pvt. Limited, SCO 335-336, First & Second Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Sales Person – Naveen.

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Ashok Verma, Counsel for Complainant.
For OP Nos.1 to 3	:	Sh. Sanket Dhall, Advocate.
For OP No.4	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Complainant, who wanted to get a loan of Rs.8,00,000/- from the Opposite Party No.2, was made to purchase an insurance policy bearing no. 000278752 for Rs.39,999/- by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 on the ground that it was a pre-condition for sanction of loan (Annexure-A). After two months, Opposite Party No.4 again made the Complainant to purchase another insurance policy bearing no. 000291684 for Rs.39,998/- on the ground that the terms & conditions for advancing of loan has changed (Annexure-B). It has been alleged that even thereafter, the Opposite Party No.2 did not release the loan amount saying that the loan case of the Complainant was under process and the same would be released shortly. After one month, Opposite Party No.4 again made the Complainant to deposit Rs.72,299/- on the ground that he had won a Swift Car in a lucky draw and the said amount was required to be deposited for insurance and registration of the car (). However, instead of delivering the car, the Opposite Parties issued an insurance policy no.000295886 amounting to Rs.72,299/-. When even after issuing three policies, the loan of the Complainant was not sanctioned, he made umpteen number of visits to the Opposite Party No.2 with a request to release the loan, but every time he was put off on one pretext or the other. Eventually, the Complainant served a legal notice dated 14.7.2014 upon the Opposite Parties, for cancellation of the Policies and return of the amount paid by the Complainant, but the same too failed to yield the desired results. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case. However, Opposite Party No.4 did not turn up despite service, hence it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 04.02.2015.

 

3.     Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 in their joint reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the matter, have pleaded that the Complainant voluntarily purchased the insurance policies no.000278752 and 000291684 by paying the requisite premiums after understanding all the terms and conditions thereof. It has been further pleaded that the Complainant also purchased another insurance policy bearing no. 000295886 for Rs.72,299/- after understanding all the terms & conditions of the policy. It has been submitted that the terms & conditions of the Policies were well within the knowledge of the Complainant and also that there was no pre-condition to purchase the said policies to avail loan as alleged by the Complainant. The Complainant had paid premiums under all the three policies through Cheque which means that he was well aware that he was making paying against the insurance policies and not against anything else. It has been asserted that the Complainant never approached the answering Opposite Parties within the free look period and it was only after approx. 07 months from commencement of the first policy that the Complainant vide baseless legal notice approached the Opposite Parties, which was duly replied on 30.07.2014. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have been controverted.

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the contesting parties. 

 

7.     It is evident from the record that the Complainant has purchased three insurance policies, which has been admitted by the Opposite Parties. It is also a fact that the Complainant did not initiate the process of cancellation of the same within the free look in period. It is only after 07 months from the date of receipt of first policy that the Complainant initiated the process of getting the insurance policies cancelled and asking for refund of the amount vide legal notice Annexure-E. This fact has not been contested by the Complainant.   

 

8.     So far as the Complaint in respect of not granting loan of Rs.8.00 lac to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties is concerned, there is no documentary evidence on record to show that the Complainant ever made any application for the grant of loan to the Opposite Parties. There is no loan agreement between the parties and the Complainant has failed to bring on record any document showing linkage between three insurance policies. The Complainant has contended that he approached Opposite Parties for the grant of the loan of Rs.8.00 lac. However, on the contrary the Opposite Parties have categorically refuted this contention stating that it is only an insurance company and not a loan granting company. The Opposite Parties have further stated that they are not granting loan to anyone and the Complainant has not been able to prove or produce any document in support of his contention that the Opposite Parties have promised him sanction of loan of Rs.8.00 lac subject to his taking of three policies.  

 

9.     So far as Annexure-D to the Complaint is concerned, on its close scrutiny, we feel that it is a common document stating the broad terms and conditions for the loan procedure. But there is no commitment or agreement in the said Annexure-D in respect to grant of loan of Rs.8.00 lac to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties. Moreover, it is an unsigned document, which carries no weight to support the case of the Complainant.

 

10.     In view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the complaint is meritless.  The same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

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

Announced

22^nd June, 2015                          

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER