DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 669/09
Shri Ashish Gupta
S/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Gupta
R/o B-39, South Extension Part-II
New Delhi - 110049 -Complainant
Vs
1. The Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd.
Through its Managing Director
Jeewan Deep Building
Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110001
2. The Chief Branch Manager
LIC Housing Finance Ltd.
Lajpat Nagar Part-II
New Delhi – 110024
3. Chief Manager
Life Insurance Corporation Ltd.
Branch Unit II E, 16 A, Kamla Nagar,
Delhi - 110007 -Opposite Parties
Date of Institution: 27.08.2009 Date of Order: 16.08.2016
Coram:
N.K. Goel, President
Naina Bakshi, Member
S.S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
S.S. Fonia, Member
After going through the complaint and various documents, the case of the complainant is that he is said to have applied for housing loan with the OPs but one of the representative of the OPs, namely, Sh. Subhash Choudhary (since terminated) cajoled him that unless he obtains policy for insurance from the OPs, grant of housing loan will not be possible. Accordingly, he applied for insurance policy and later on when he came to know that such condition is not mandatory, he sought cancellation of his policy which was turned down by the OPs on the plea that the request for cancellation has been made after 15 days. Disputing this he has raised this complaint and the brief facts are narrated below:
The complainant is said to have approached one Mr. Subhash Choudhary of OP-3 who convinced the complainant that in pursuance of complainant’s requirement for home loan, he has been delegated by the OP-3 to collect the necessary papers along with a blank cheque in the name of “LIC Housing Finance Ltd.”. The said representative also informed the complainant that it is mandatory for an applicant of home loan to simultaneously apply for the insurance plan from LIC and coerced the complainant to part with a blank cheque for the same by saying that if an LIC insurance policy was not applied by him simultaneously his home loan requirement may not be considered by the OP-3 for approval. On the pretext of arranging a guarantee for home loan approval, Mr. Subhash Choudhary took the signatures of the complainant on an application form of LIC without even specifying/elaborating the insurance plan and he also assured to the complainant that the premium of the insurance shall not exceed more than 3-4000/- per annum. The complainant further states that Mr. Subhash Choudhary conveyed to him that an amount of Rs. 11,973/- as annual premium charges is liable to be paid by the complainant and cheque of this amount has already been deposited in the bank for clearance thereby crediting the amount in OP-1’s account which he had arranged from taking loan from his family and friends with a view to maintain his good credit rating. The complainant has annexed Bank account as Annex. A-I. Later on, when the complainant did not receive any document, he made an inquiry for non-receipt of documents and to his utter shock and dis-belief he is said to have been informed by one of senior officials of the OP that “it is not mandatory for a home loan applicant to simultaneously opt for the life insurance policy so as to cover the home loan risk”. The complainant has also apprised that Mr. Subash Choudhary, the company representative of OP-2 has been terminated. The complainant alleges that “sudden termination of Mr. Choudhary has confirmed his belief that the OPs were hand-in-glove with the said representative who acted in connivance with the OP-1 & 2 simultaneously and the sudden termination was only to prevent the exposure of their ugly acts”. The complainant was finally informed of the details of his insurance policy as under:
Policy no. 124853638
Sum assured Rs. 2,00,000/-
Premium Pay Term 11,973 on annual pay term
Term Period 21 years
Copy of the said certificate is filed as Annex. A-2. The complainant inter-alia states that he was also reprimanded by his relatives and friends when he did not refund amount to them on time for the reason that he was also heavily depending on the refund of the amount from the OPs. The complainant states that he was justified under all parameters to ask for the cancellation and refund and despite repeated requests by the complainant for cancellation of the said policy, he was rudely turned down by the officials of the OPs. The complainant further states that his first request for cancellation was well within 15 days from the date of issue of the policy. Thereafter a letter dated 9.4.2009 addressed to one Sh. Arun Kumar, Branch Manager, LIC Ltd. Lajpat Nagar-II Branch (New Delhi) for cancellation of the policy was also personally submitted by him in the said branch of OPs. This letter is annexed as Annex. A-3. The complainant further states that even after meeting and assurance by Branch Manager for cancellation, he was surprised to receive a policy certificate delivered at his address on 16.4.2009. On 24.4.2009, he sent his representative to the company premises of OP-1 at Kamla Nagar, New Delhi as the policy had been issued by the branch who submitted a letter dated 24.4.2009 for the cancellation of the said policy. The said letter was duly received by the OP office but on further meeting with the concerned personnel, complainant’s request for cancellation of policy was ignored and the personnel bluntly refused to close the policy on the pretext of non-attachment of the premium receipt which ironically has not been given to him till date. This letter is annexed as Annex. A-4. The complainant in continuation of his efforts to convince the OPs to terminate the said policy on 19.5.09, personally visited the OP-1’s Branch office at Kamla Nagar, New Delhi and submitted a letter to them. The said letter dated 19.5.09 is annexed as Annex. A-5. He is also said to have filed a complaint at the Lajpat Nagar Branch regarding ill treatment given by the OPs. Ultimately, Chief Manager, Kamla Nagar Branch sent a letter dated 22.5.2009 stating that the said policy cannot be cancelled as the period of 15 days had already lapsed. This letter is annexed as Annex. A-7. Having failed to get any response from the OPs, he sent a legal notice on 10.6.2009 to the OPs. Copy of the legal notice is annexed as Annex. A-8. Since legal notice was not acted upon the OPs, the complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of this forum to redress his grievances. The complainant has stated in his prayer that he has suffered heavy loss to the tune of Rs. 15 Lacs on failing to meet his professional commitment etc. In his prayer he has prayed for the following:
“a) Direct the OPs to cancel the above said LIC policy imposed upon him and refund the entire sum of Rs. 11,973/- along with 24% interest p.a.
- Direct the OPs to jointly and severally refund the amount of Rs. 25,000/- the complainant (which he) had to spend on petrol, transportations and other means and the subsequent losses
- Pay Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and disruption of family’s peace
- Rs. 10,000/- for the cost of litigation.”
The OPs have filed written statements denying all the averments made by the complainant.
The OP-1 & 3 have particularly rebutted the claim of the Complainant for cancellation of the policy on the plea that “as per the mandatory guidelines issued by the IRDA, the policy can only be cancelled if the request for cancellation is received by the insurer within 15 days of the receipt of the policy by the insured”. The OP-1 & 3 have stated that the complainant received the policy on 16.4.09 and submitted the application for cancellation on 19.5.2009. The OPs have further disputed the claim of the complainant for the reasons of non-joinder of Sh. Subhash Choudhary as a party to the complaint.
OP-2 has also filed reply to the complaint and raised the issue that no cause of action has arisen against OP-2 as OP has nothing to do with the issuance of insurance policy in favour of the complainant with further objection that the necessary party i.e. Sh. Subhash Chand has not been impleaded.
The complainant has filed rejoinders reiterating his own averments.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Sudhir Gupta, Area Manager has been filed in evidence on behalf of OP-2.
OPs have been proceeded exparte vide order dated 2.8.2011 passed by our predecessors.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the complainant and OP-1 & 3.
We have heard the arguments of the complainant and have also carefully perused the material on record placed before us.
Now, we straightway come to deal with the question, whether the relief prayed for is admissible or not?
The complainant has not adduced any evidence in support of availing housing loan from OP-2. He has even not filed any document which could throw light that he owed any immovable property for construction or repair at the relevant time. Therefore, the allegation of allowing the complainant to procure insurance policy for paving way for grant of housing loan is not substantiated by any credible evidence. More so, the person, namely, Sh. Subhash Choudhary in the complaint who is said to have cajoled the complainant for procuring the insurance policy has not been impleaded as OP by the complainant. OP-2 in its reply in Para 4 has stated that the Home loan/direct selling agency granted to Mr. Subhash Choudhary had been terminated vide letter dated 27.4.2009 whereby he was debarred from representing the OP-2.
The next point which arises for consideration is, refusal of OP-3 to cancel the insurance policy No. 124853638 said to have been requested by the complainant.
As stated by OP-1 & 3 in their written statement that “as per the mandatory guidelines issued by the IRDA, the policy can only be cancelled if the request for cancellation is received by the insurer within 15 days of the receipt of the policy by the insured”. We have examined the documents submitted in this regard and we find that request of complainant for cancellation of the policy No. 124853638 is said to have been sent on 9.4.09 and 24.4.09 are not credit worthy to prove the date of request for cancellation of the policy. However, we find that the request of the complainant dated 20.4.2009 had been acknowledged by the OPs on 19.5.09 which is a part of documents exhibited as Annex. A-5 (Colly). It has been received under stamp of OP-1 & 3 or OP-1 or OP-3. OP-1 & 3 are government departments. Unless contrary is proved, they must be presumed to have performed the work regularly. Had the complainant given letter dated 9.4.09 and 24.4.09 in the office of OP-1 & 3 they must have received the same by putting their stamp and initials. Therefore, it is proved that the request for cancellation of the policy by the Chief Manager of LIC i.e. OP-3 was received by them on 19.5.09 only. Admittedly, the complainant received the policy certificate on 16.4.09. Then how could he write a letter to the OP-1 & 3 on 9.4.2009 in anticipation. Therefore, OPs were well within their right to reject the request of the complainant for cancellation of the policy in terms of mandatory requirement of IRDA. Further, we are constrained to observe that the complainant has tried to lodge a claim of Rs. 15 lacs as compensation for mental agony, harassment and disruption of family’s peace in his own fault of signing on the blank form, blank cheque and blaming the OPs for no fault of theirs.
Here, we want to add that the complainant has falsely pleaded that in order to get the cheque of Rs. 11,973/- he had to take personal loan from his family and friends. He has filed the copy of his bank statement of account as Annex. A-I which shows that he had saving bank account in ICICI Lombard Bank and after depositing Rs. 5500/- on 24.3.2009 by cash he had not deposited any further amount in his account till the debiting of Rs. 11,973/- in the account of LIC of India. Therefore, he had sufficient amount as on 26.3.2009 when the cheque for this amount was cleared by his bank. Therefore, his version that he had taken the personal loan from his family and friends is apparently not a true version.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the complaint is vexatious and, accordingly, the complaint is dismissed. We also order that the complainant shall pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the OPs under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act as a cost for making vexatious complaint against OPs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 16.08.2016
Case No. 669/09
16.8.2016
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. We also order that the complainant shall pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the OPs under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act as a cost for making vexatious complaint against OPs. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
