Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/443/2014

Amarjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The DLF - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Verma & Navneet Singh Sodhi, Adv.

01 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH (I) Consumer Complaint No. : 443/2014 Date of Institution : 27.08.2014 Date of Decision : 01/10/2015 Amarjit Singh son of Sh.Jodh Singh r/o House No.320, C/1, Rattan Nagar Tripari Patiala Now residing at Quarter No.3, Back Side Gurdwara JLPL, Sector 82, Mohali. ….Complainant Versus 1. The DLF now DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance Company Limited, 4th 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 (II) Consumer Complaint No. : 442/2014 Date of Institution : 27.08.2014 Date of Decision : 01/10/2015 Yograj Sharma s/o Narayan Sharma r/o W.No.8 Basan Nagar, Rampura Road, Bhawanigarh Road, Sangrur now residing at Quarter No.3, Back Side Gurdwara JLPL, Sector 82, Mohali. ….Complainant Versus 1. The DLF now DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance Company Limited, 4th 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: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER Argued by: Sh.Devinder Kumar, proxy Counsel for Sh.Ashok Kumar, Counsel for the complainant Sh.Saket Dhall, Counsel for OPs No.1 to 3. OP No.4 exparte. PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT 1. By this order we propose to dispose of the above mentioned two connected consumer complaints in which common questions of law and fact are involved. 2. The facts are gathered from Consumer Complaint No.443 of 2014-Amarjit Singh Vs. The DLF now DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and others. 3. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he wanted to avail a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Opposite Party No.2, was made to purchase an insurance policy bearing no. 000280282 for Rs.10,000/- by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 on the ground that it was a pre-condition for sanction of loan (Annexure-A). However, subsequently, Opposite Party Nos.2 and 4 did not release the loan amount saying that the loan case of the complainant was under process and the same would be released shortly. According to the complainant even after issuing the policy in question, the loan 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. Ultimately, the complainant served a legal notice dated 14.7.2014 upon the Opposite Parties, for cancellation of the Policy and return of the amount paid by him, but to no effect. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. 4. Despite due service through registered post, the Opposite Party No.4 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.12.2014. 5. In their written statement, Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 while admitting the factual aspects of the matter, have pleaded that the complainant voluntarily applied the insurance policy in question by paying the requisite premium after understanding all the terms and conditions thereof vide proposal form dated 06.12.2013. Based upon the information and declaration containing the application, the OP issued the policy in question with date of commencement as 18.12.2013 and the policy documents alongwith the schedule and terms and conditions thereto and a welcome letter was sent to the complainant on 20.12.2013 through speed post AWB No:DTDC, AWB No.Z10708460 and the same was duly delivered to the complainant on 24.12.2013. It has been submitted that the terms & conditions of the policy were well within the knowledge of the complainant and also that there was no pre-condition to purchase the said policy to avail loan as alleged by him. It has further been averred that the complainant has liberty to review the terms and conditions of he policy and has the option to cancel the policy within 15 days of the receipt of the policy bond. According to the answering OPs, they have neither received any query nor a complaint during the free look period with respect to the policy in question. It has been pleaded that the complainant approached the OP vide legal notice dated 11.07.2014 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, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 6. The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 controverting their stand and reiterating his own. 7. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 8. We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the contesting parties. 9. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the parties, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for the reasons recorded hereunder. The complainant is a graduate and it is not expected from him that he signed the proposal form without going through contents thereof. It is not case of the complainant that he did not receive the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, in question. Admittedly, the complainant did not exercise the option of cancellation of the policy within 15 days free look period as provided under the policy documents meaning thereby that he was agreed with the proposed plan and the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, in question. Moreover, the complainant had served the legal notice upon the Insurance Company on 11.07.2014 i.e. after about 7 months of the issuance of the policy in question. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the OPs was right in not accepting the request of the complainant regarding the cancellation of the policy being beyond the free look period, as stipulated in the policy document. 10. Otherwise also, it is well settled principle of law that the Courts/Consumer Fora/Tribunals cannot grant any relief to any of the parties beyond the terms and conditions of the policy as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case cited as Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd and another, 2011 CTJ 11 (Supreme Court) (CP) wherein the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur, held that:- “22. Before embarking on an examination of the correctness of the grounds of repudiation of the policy, it would be apposite to examine the nature of a contract of insurance. It is trite that in a contract of insurance, the rights and obligations are governed by the terms of the said contract. Therefore, the terms of a contract of insurance have to be strictly construed, and no exception can be made on the ground of equity………..” 11. As regards the plea in respect of not granting loan of Rs.1.00 lac to the complainant by the Opposite Parties is concerned, there is no documentary evidence on record to show that he has ever made any application for the grant of loan to the Opposite Parties. The complainant has failed to bring on record any document showing linkage between the loan and the policy in question. The complainant has contended that he approached Opposite Parties for the grant of the loan. However, on the contrary the Opposite Parties have categorically rebutted this plea by stating that it is only an Insurance Company and not a loan granting company. They 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 they have promised him sanction of loan subject to his taking of the Insurance Policy. 12. As regards Annexure-B 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 Annexure-B in respect to grant of loan of Rs.1.00 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. The complainant has, thus, failed to make out any case of deficiency in service as also indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. 13. Similar facts have been pleaded to in the connected Consumer Complaint No.442 of 2014-Yograj Sharma Vs. The DLF now DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and others.. 14. For the reasons recorded above, finding the complaints to be devoid of any substance and merit, the same are dismissed with no order as to costs. 15. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 01/10/2015 Sd/- (RAJAN DEWAN) PRESIDENT Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER