DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 213/2014
Date of Institution : 01.10.2014
Date of Decision : 08.07.2015
Amarjit Kaur wife of late Harpal Singh resident of H.No. 233, Rathariana Mohalla Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
The Manager Reliance Life Insurance College Road Opposite Deep Nursing Home, Barnala, Doctor Sidana Street Barnala.
Ombudsman Reliance Life Insurance H Block 1st Floor Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City Navi Mumbai Maharashtra-400710 India.
Gagandeep Kaur Authorized Agent Advisory Numer21128832 C/o Reliance Life Insurance College Road, Barnala.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. R.P. Singh Advocate counsel for complainant.
Sh. S.S. Dhaliwal Advocate counsel for opposite party No.1
The opposite party No. 2 deleted.
Sh. J.S. Dhaliwal Advocate counsel for opposite party No. 3.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(BY SHRI KARNAIL SINGH MEMBER):
The complainant namely Amarjit Kaur has filed the complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as Act) against the Manager Reliance Life Insurance and others (hereinafter called as the opposite parties) on the ground that the complainant purchased an insurance policy No. 87092011 and the date of commencement is 20.9.2010 under the Reliance Supper Invest Assure Basic Plan. It is alleged that the opposite party No. 3 visited the house of the complainant and told about the scheme that “if she deposits six monthly installments each of Rs. 6,000/- for three years with the opposite party No.1, in that event after three years she will get Rs. 36,000/- alongwith interests and medical risk was also covered in it”. It is further alleged that the complainant paid all the installments to the opposite party No. 1 without any fault.
2. It is further alleged that on completion of three years the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 and demanded the amount of Rs. 36,000/- alongwith interest, but the opposite party No. 1 refused to refund the amount and told that they will pay only Rs. 18,000/-, because the policy is for 20 years.
3. It is further alleged that the complainant is less educated and only know to write and read Punjabi language and has no knowledge about English language and cannot read and write English language. It is alleged that the agent of the opposite party No. 1 obtained the signatures of the complainant on blank printed papers, which were printed in English language and complainant signed the same in good faith. Thereafter, the complainant discussed the matter with her counsel and then came to know that the policy life was mentioned for 20 years. It is further alleged that the opposite party No. 3 in connivance with the opposite party No. 1 obtained the signatures of complainant on blank papers. The act of the opposite parties caused mental tension, agony, physical harassment and financial loss to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.
To pay a sum of Rs. 36,000/- amount of premium alongwith interest and Rs. 20,000/- as compensatory costs and Rs. 10,000/- as costs of the proceedings, in total Rs. 66,000/- per month w.e.f. 25.10.2010 alongwith interest.
To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental tension and physical harassment.
To pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties No. 1 to 3. However, on 7.1.2015 the Ld. Counsel for the complainant made a statement that he does not want to proceed against the opposite party No. 2 and his name may be deleted from the array of opposite parties.
5. The opposite party No. 1 filed written version taking preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability, complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, locus standi, complaint is frivolous and vexatious, concealment of material facts etc. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant purchased the policy from them after understanding the entire terms and conditions in vernacular language from the adviser. The complainant was very well aware about the policy and now she made a concocted story just to get undue benefits from the Forum. It is averred that the complainant opted to purchase Reliance Super Invest Assure Basic Plan Unit Linked Life Insurance Policy of them and filled the Application No. C-4019237 and opted to pay Rs. 6,000/- as semi annual premium and also opted the policy term as 20 years pay term 20 years. After receiving the proposal form, the insurance policy bearing No. 17809712 issued to the complainant alongwith policy documents with all terms and conditions of policy and the same are in her possession.
6. It is further submitted that as per the provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938 IRDA Act, 1999 and rules and regulations made thereunder the insured have an option to reconsider the policy under the grab of Free Look Period means that in the event, you are in disagreement with the terms and conditions of this plan, you may wish to opt out of this plan, by stating the reasons of your disagreement and return the policy documents to the company within 15 days of its receipt for cancellation. In which event, the company will refund an amount equal to the non allocated premium plus the charges levied by cancellation of units plus, the fund value as on date of cancellation subject to a deduction of a proportionate risk premium for the period of cover less expenses incurred by the company on your medical examination, if any and stamp duty charges. But the complainant did not do so, which clearly shows that the complainant agreed with the same.
7. It is further submitted that the complainant paid only three annual premiums against the policy and thereafter she did not pay the renewal premium, hence the policy of the complainant lapsed due to non-payment of premium. It is submitted that the complainant can get the value after surrender the policy to the company and the complainant is ready to pay the value of the policy as per terms and conditions of the policy. All other allegations of the complainant are denied. They have denied any deficiency in service on their part and finally prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
8. The opposite party No. 3 filed separate written version taking legal objections on the grounds of no cause of action or locus standi, complainant is not the consumer and bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties etc. On merits, the allegations of the complainant are denied. It is submitted that the complainant stopped depositing the installments. The insurance company consented to refund the amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant, but she out of greed not consented to the offer and filed the present complaint. It is specifically submitted that at the time of insurance it was made clear to the complainant that the policy is for 20 years. The opposite party No. 3 also denied any deficiency in service on her part and finally prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
9. In order to prove her case, the complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of insurance policy Ex.C-2, copies of installments receipts Ex.C-3 to Ex.C8, copy of premium receipt Ex.C-9, copy of statement of account Ex.C-10, copy of policy schedule Ex.C-11 and closed her evidence.
10. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Deepak Goyal Ex. O.P1/1, copy of basic plan Ex.O.P1/2, copy of proposal form Ex.O.P1/3, copy of reliance super form Ex.O.P1/4, copy of voter card Ex.O.P1/5, copy of sale manager moral report Ex.O.P1/6, copy of lab test request form Ex.O.P1/7 and closed the evidence.
11. In order to rebut the case of complainant the opposite party No. 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Gagandeep Kaur Ex.O.P3/1 and closed the evidence.
12. We have gone through the documents placed on record by the parties and heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties at length.
13. The case of the complainant is that she purchased a policy from the opposite party No. 1 and deposited six half yearly installments of Rs. 6,000/- for three years and she was assured to pay Rs. 36,000/- after three years. It is further the case of complainant that after completion of the three years when she approached the opposite party No. 1 for releasing the maturity value then the opposite party No. 1 told her that the policy has already been lapsed and the complainant is entitled to only surrender value. Therefore, the complainant has alleged that there is a deficiency in service and she is entitled to the maturity value of Rs. 36,000/- alongwith interest.
14. The case of the opposite party No. 1 is that the complainant purchased a policy issued on the basis of the proposal form duly filled by the complainant and the policy was for twenty years and semi annual premium was to be paid to the tune of Rs. 6,000/-, however the complainant has paid only six half yearly installments of Rs. 6,000/- each for three years and thereafter she did not pay the premium, therefore the policy was lapsed due to non-payment of premium. The opposite party No. 1 submitted in its written version in Para 3(e) that the complainant can get the value after surrender the policy and they are ready to pay the value of the policy as per terms and conditions of the policy, if the complainant surrender the policy.
15. Admittedly, the complainant has paid only six half yearly installments of Rs. 6,000/- each and thereafter she discontinued to pay the premiums.
16. We are equipped with the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 2000(1) CLT 615, in case titled M/s Modern Insulators Ltd. Vs M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Insurance law- Fundamental principle that utmost good faith must be observed by the contracting parties- And good faith forbids either party from non-disclosure of the facts which the parties known- The insured has duty to disclose and similarly it is the duty of insurance company and its agents to disclose all material facts in their knowledge since obligation of good faith applies to both equally.
17. We are of the view that opposite party No. 1 has not performed its part of contract in a legal manner as the very fundamental of the contract is based on wrong information and misleading facts. The complainant was not able to understand the policy and she was made to subscribe the same by the agent of the Insurance Company, by giving wrong facts.
18. Keeping in view the terms and conditions of the policy as the complainant failed to pay the premium, therefore the policy got lapsed due to non-payment of premium. During arguments the opposite party has not denied that the opposite party still ready to pay the surrender value of policy, in case the complainant surrender the policy.
19. In view of the above discussion we are of the view that since the complainant failed to pay the future premiums, therefore the policy was rightly lapsed and the complainant is entitled to only surrender value of policy. Accordingly, the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted against the opposite party No. 1. The complainant is directed to surrender the policy and the opposite party No. 1 is directed to pay the surrender value of the policy to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till its realization. The complainant is also entitled to Rs. 1,100/- on account of litigation expenses from the opposite party No. 1. This order of ours shall be complied within 45 days from the date of the receipt of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
8th Day of July, 2015.
(S.K. Goel)
President.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member.
