Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/316/2016

Kiran Kumar Bhatia - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Exide Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vipin Kaushal

06 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/316/2016
Date of Institution	:	06/05/2016
Date of Decision	:	06/06/2018

Kiran Kumar Bhatia s/o Darshan Kumar Bhatia r/o H.No.2542, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     The Exide Life Insurance Company Limited (Formerly ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Limited), 3^rd Floor, J.P. Techno Park, No.3/1, Millers Road, Benguluru Pin 560001 (through its Managing Director & C.E.O. Sh. Kshitij Jain).

2.     The Exide Life Insurance Company Limited, (Formerly ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Limited) S.C.O 166-167, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh Pin 160009 (through its Manager).

3.     Subham Bhardwaj Advisor (advisor Code 60311501) c/o The Exide Life Insurance Company Limited (Formerly ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Limited) S.C.O 166-167, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh Pin 160009 (through its Manager).

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                     

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Vipin Kaushal, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OPs 1 & 2
	:	OP-3 ex-parte

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         Allegations are, on being advised by OP-3, agent of OPs 1 & 2/Insurance Company, complainant had purchased insurance plan on 14.8.2015 and paid a sum of Rs.45,000/- through cheque which was duly encashed by OPs on 20.8.2015.  Again on persistence by OP-3, another policy for GIIP insurance plan was purchased and a sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid.  The grievance of the complainant is despite the first premium having been paid, policies were not despatched to him.  OP-3 had claimed, he had dispute of commission with OPs 1 & 2, therefore, the policies could not be despatched by OPs 1 & 2. As such, OPs employed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the present consumer complaint praying for refund of Rs.75,000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses. 
2.         OPs 1 & 2 contested the consumer complaint and filed joint reply, inter alia, raised preliminary objections of complaint being false and incorrect.  On merits it is admitted, premiums were received and policy Nos.03165701 & 03219249 were despatched on 3.9.2015 and 9.11.2015 through registered post.  It is also the case, as a matter of fact, complainant wants to get his money refunded, but, that option is not available with him. The reasons are after issuance of policies, terms and conditions were to cancel the policy within 15 days from the date of receipt and thereafter the policies had become irrevocable. Hence, the amount paid cannot be refunded. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         OP-3 did not appear despite due service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 17.8.2016.
4.         Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.         We have heard the learned counsels for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.  After appraisal of record, our findings are as under:-
6.         A perusal of the record shows dates of deposit of the first premium was 14.8.2015 and 31.10.2015 respectively and the present complaint was filed on 6.5.2016 only i.e. to say after about eight and six months respectively. We shall refer to the terms and conditions of the policies, copy of which is Annexure 2, as per which option of the insured was sought to cancel the policy within a period of 15 days after which it becomes irrevocable. However, the said option was not exercised by the insured, i.e. the complainant.
7.         Per allegations made in the written statement, coupled with Annexure 3, shows these policies were despatched on 3.9.2015 and 9.11.2015 while the present consumer complaint was filed on 6.5.2016 only.  Certainly the option of cancellation was not exercised and the simple averments made is policies were not received.  If the OPs can disclose the date of despatch of the policies before this Forum and produce photocopies of the documents then it looks to be unnatural why they should not send the same to the insured i.e. the complainant.  
8.         Per record, it looks the complainant wants refund of the amount and as he may have pondered over the policies terms and conditions were not acceptable to him and the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policies had already expired, therefore, he invented a device to put forth this plea, policies were not received. Photocopies of the postal receipts are Annexure 3 and normally there is no question why these have not been received in ordinary course. There is presumption official and judicial acts are performed in regular manner. There is no prayer by the complainant for issuance of duplicate policies.
9.         In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present consumer complaint and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
06/06/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	President