Date of Filing : 28/07/2016
Order No. 13 dt. 12/12/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant applied for 3 insurance policies to o.ps. and accordingly o.ps. issued 3 policies in the name of the complainant having policy nos.15702005. 15189935 and 15189371. The o.ps. insisted the complainant to avail those policies with one time premium and the complainant agreed to the said proposal, but after getting the policy bonds the complainant became astonished and found that the complainant will have to pay premium regularly upto 7 years which was impossible for the complainant. On the basis of the said fact the complainant wrote letters to o.ps. for refund of the premium, but o.ps. did not take any action for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to refund the deposited amount as well as compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the policies in question were issued by o.ps. in the year 2011. The allegation of the complainant pertaining to misspelling is related to the issuance of the policies and should have been raised at the issuance stage and not in the present complaint filed in 2016. After lapse of 5 years the complainant on the basis of a manufactured story filed this case which is not at all believable. The complainant never approached the o.ps. with any grievance except by filing the petition of complaint against the o.ps. The complainant on the basis of the concocted story filed this case and the allegations of misselling are against the agent, but the agent has not been made a party to this case. The complainant has failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the policies were sold to her as single premium policies and she enjoyed the benefit of the policies from 2011 to 2016. Thereafter he got up from her slumber and filed this case by making false allegations against the o.ps. On the basis of the said fact o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant had the policies with o.ps.?
- Whether the policies were sold to the complainant by making false assurance that the premium paid by the complainant was for onetime premium?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant applied for 3 insurance policies to o.ps. and accordingly o.ps. issued 3 policies in the name of the complainant having policy nos.15702005. 15189935 and 15189371. The o.ps. insisted the complainant to avail those policies with one time premium and the complainant agreed to the said proposal, but after getting the policy bonds the complainant became astonished and found that the complainant will have to pay premium regularly upto 7 years which was impossible for the complainant. On the basis of the said fact the complainant wrote letters to o.ps. for refund of the premium, but o.ps. did not take any action for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to refund the deposited amount as well as other reliefs.
Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that the policies in question were issued by o.ps. in the year 2011. The allegation of the complainant pertaining to misspelling is related to the issuance of the policies and should have been raised at the issuance stage and not in the present complaint filed in 2016. After lapse of 5 years the complainant on the basis of a manufactured story filed this case which is not at all believable. The complainant never approached the o.ps. with any grievance except by filing the petition of complaint against the o.ps. The complainant on the basis of the concocted story filed this case and the allegations of misselling are against the agent, but the agent has not been made a party to this case. The complainant has failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the policies were sold to him as single premium policies and she enjoyed the benefit of the policies from 2011 to 2016. Thereafter she got up from her slumber and filed this case by making false allegation against the o.ps. On the basis of the said fact o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that th e complainant had applied for 3 policies to o.ps. and after receiving the policies the complainant contacted with o.ps. and she was assured that the policies would be converted to onetime payment of premium, but o.ps. did not abide by the assurance given to the complainant. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case. It appears from the materials on record that the policies were issued in the year 2011 and the complainant filed this case in the year 2016, after the lapse of 5 years the complainant by manufacturing the story filed this case against the o.ps. stating that o.ps. agreed to convert the policies by accepting onetime premium from the complainant. The complainant did not raise her objection after receiving the policies for cancellation of the policies within the free look period. The complainant did not adduce any evidence to support her contention that there was misspelling of the policies by o.ps. The complainant made allegation against the agent who sold the policies to the complainant, but the agent has not been made a party in this case. The policies issued by o.ps. were challenged by the complainant after the lapse of 5 years and no evidence has been adduced by the complainant that those were sold by misleading the complainant an any point of time. Since no cogent material has been adduced by the complainant in support of her contention and no evidence has been adduced to that effect, therefore we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.288/2016 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
