Haryana

Panchkula

CC/205/2021

TARA CHAND MONGIA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGER,PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK. - Opp.Party(s)

SANJEEV MALHOTRA.

07 Jun 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	205 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	02.04.2021
Date of Decision	:	07.06.2023

 

 

Tara Chand Mongia, aged 75 years, Estt. Officer(Retd.) Forest  Deptt. Haryana, son of Shri Kanshi Ram Mongia, resident of house no.679, Sector-9, Panchkula.

 

                                                                           ….Complainant

 

Versus

1.     The Manager, Punjab National Bank, SCF 41, Sector-8, Panchkula(HR).

2.     The Manager, Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Co.Ltd. SCO-3, Ist Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector-26, Chandigarh-160019.

3.     The Manager, Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Co.Ltd., 2^nd Floor, Orchid Business Park, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurugram-122018, Haryana, India.

….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member

Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav, Member

 

       

For the Parties:   Sh. Sanjeev Malhotra, Advocate for complainant.

                        Sh. Devinder Kumar,  Advocate for OP No.1.

                        Sh. Alankrit Bhardwaj, Advocate for OPs No.2 & 3.

 

                       

                                                ORDER 

(Satpal, President)

1.Briefly stated, the facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are that, in the month of September 2020, one agent of the OP No.1 called the complainant that the bank(OP No.1) was giving higher rate of interest on the amount which was deposited in the shape of fixed deposit  and on his allurement, the complainant agreed to deposit  an amount of Rs.3,40,000/-in the shape of FD with OP No.1. The complainant visited the OP No.1 and gave a signed cheque no.120049 dated drawn on State Bank of India, Sector-8, Panchkula for depositing the same in the shape of FDR. The payee column of the said cheque was left blank on the request of the Kanwaljit Kaur. The complainant was surprised and shocked to know that the amount of Rs.3,40,000/- was deposited  for the purchase of insurance policy no.0114410119, plan namely, Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Guaranteed Income Plan. It is stated that the complainant had never intended to obtain the insurance policy. It is further stated that the said policy was sent by OPs No.2 & 3 after a period of 2-3 months and upon repeated request of the complainant; and that Ops No.2 & 3, knowingly and intentionally, in order to curtail the right of the complainant qua the cancellation of the policy with free look period had given wrong address on the policy. The complainant requested the OP No.1 for the refund of the said amount but the OP No.1 did not pay any heed to his request. It is stated that the OPs No.2 & 3 were also approached by making representation requesting  to sort out his grievances but no action was taken in the matter. It is stated that the Ops had acted contrary to the guidelines of IRDA and had issued the policy with wrong address so as to prevent the complainant to cancel the policy within 15 days of free look period. A legal notice was sent on 10.02.2021 through Advocate but to no avail.  Due to the act and conduct of OPs No.1 to 3, the complainant has suffered a great deal of financial loss and mental agony, harassment; hence, the present complaint.

2.Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement contesting the complaint by raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable as no cause of action has accrued in favour of the complainant. The present complaint is an afterthought and has only been filed with an ulterior motive to harass and humiliate the OP No.1.  On merits, it is submitted that the OP No.1 had not allured the complainant to invest in Fixed Deposit. It is submitted that the OP No.1 had never called the complainant suggested him to deposit the amount in FDR. It is submitted that the complainant himself had invested in insurance policy. No legal notice as alleged by the complainant was received by OP No.1. There is no lapses and deficiency on the part of the OP no.1 and thus, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

                Upon notice, the OPs No.2 & 3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement contesting the complaint by raising preliminary objections. It is submitted that Sh. Tara Chand Mongia, after completely understanding and satisfying himself with the terms and conditions of the product, had voluntarily applied for the plan namely, “Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Guaranteed  Income Plan” for a sum assured of Rs.4,32,754/- having single premium of Rs.3,25,359/-. The complainant had opted a single premium plan with a policy Term of 7 years vide Proposal form bearing  no.9101021474 dated 22.09.2020 and provided all the relevant details and information in the said Proposal Form. The complainant has not disputed the fact that he has not filled the proposal form and has signed the addendum. Since the complainant has signed the addendum, it can be assumed that he is well aware about the fact that the policy was issued for a single premium term of 7 years. It is submitted that the complainant was duly informed about the features of the plan at the proposal stage and in this regard, he had signed and agreed to the declaration in addendum. It is submitted that the insurance policy bearing no.0114410119 was issued in favour of the complainant with risk commencement dated being 10.10.2020. The copy of proposal form along with policy terms and conditions was dispatched at the complainant’s address as mentioned in the proposal form through DTDC courier on 14^th October 2020 vide AWB No.X66911415. The complainant for the first time approached the Ops through legal notice dated 10.02.2021 i.e. after the expiry of the freelook period, therefore, the request of the complainant for cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium was declined vide letter dated 15.03.2021. No cause of action has accrued in favour of the complainant. It is stated that the complainant failed to approach the Ops within the freelook period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy. On merits, pleas and assertions made in the preliminary objections have been reiterated and it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.2 & 3 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

3.To prove the case, the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-10 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Op No.1 has tendered an affidavit as Annexure R-1/A along with document as Annexure R-1/1 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 has tendered an affidavit as Annexure R-2/A along with document as Annexure R-2/1 to R-2/3 and closed the evidence.

                During the course of arguments, the complainant has tendered the  photocopy of welcome letter as well as the copy of insurance policy with correct address i.e.House No.679, Sector-9, Panchkula, which are taken on record as Mark ‘A’ & ‘B’ for the adjudication of the controversy between the parties in a proper and fair manner. 

4.We have heard the earned counsels for the complainant and OP No.1 as well as OPs No.2 & 3  and gone through the entire record available on file including written arguments filed by the OP No.1, as well OPs No.2 & 3, minutely and carefully.

5.Admittedly, a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- was debited from the account no.55116558490 of the complainant on 23.09.2020 and the same was credited  in to the account of OPs No.2 & 3 in respect of insurance policy no.0114410119 bearing the plan namely “Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Guaranteed  Income Plan”. The grievances of the complainant are that his right to cancel the insurance policy within free look period of within days was intentionally snatched by OPs No.2 & 3 by mentioning the wrong address i.e. #65 ward no.11, Sector-9, Panchkula, Sector-8 instead of correct address i.e. #679, Sector-9, Panchkula on the welcome letter as well as other papers pertaining to the said policy, which were sent to him by OPs No.2 & 3.

                During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant reiterating the averments as made in the complaint as also in the affidavit Annexure C-A of the complainant has contended that the OPs No.2 & 3 had intentionally sent the welcome letter/insurance policy at the wrong address so as to prevent the complainant from cancelling the insurance policy within the free look period of 15 days/30 days and thus, the complaint is liable to be accepted by granting the relief as claimed for in the present complaint.

6.The learned counsel on behalf of the OP No.1, while reiterating the averments as made in the written statement, has submitted that insurance policy was issued by Ops No.2 & 3 and thus, there was no deficiency on the part of the OP No.1. It is contended that the OP No.1 had no connection, whatsoever, with OPs No.2 & 3 in the matter of issuance of the insurance policy in question to the complainant; thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed qua OP no.1.

7.The OPs No.2 & 3 has contested the complaint mainly on the ground that the complainant had failed to approach the Ops qua cancellation of the policy in question within free look period of 15 days. The learned counsel emphasized that the complainant has no right to seek the cancellation of the policy beyond the looking period of 15 days.  Reliance has been placed on the following case laws:-

1. Pramod Kumar Vs. SBI Life Insurance Co. Decided by DCDRC, (North West) New Delhi, on 18.2.2014(case in 935/2012).
2. Mohan Lal Benal Vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd IN Revision Petition No.2870  of 2012(NC)and Harish Kumar Chadha Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. in Revision Petition No.3271 decided on 07.10.2023(NC).
3.  Shrikant Murlidhar Apte Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Revision Petition no.634 of 2012 decided on 02.05.2013(NC).

                Continuing the arguments, the learned counsel stated that the insurance policy is a legal contract between the life assured and insurance company and the parties to the said contract are bound by its terms and conditions. Reliance has been placed on the following case laws:-

1. Suraj Mal Ram, Niwas Oil Mills(P) Ltd. Vs. United  India Insurance Co.Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 567.

 

2. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Garg Sons International 2013(1) Scale 410(SC).

 

3.  Reliance  General Insurance Co. ltd. Vs. Madhavacharya (RP No. 211/2009)(NC).

 

4.  General Insurance Society Limited Vs. Chandumul Jain & Anr. (1996) 3 SCR 500(SC)

 

5.  United Insurance Co. Ltd.Vs. Harchand Raichand Rai Chandanlal I (2003) CPG 393 & Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. II(2009) CPJ 34(SC)

 

 

        Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel submitted that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed being baseless and meritless.

8.Since, the main grievance of the complainant is that he was prevented from exercising his right of cancellation of the insurance policy within free look period of 15 days by mentioning his wrong address on the welcome letter as well as the other insurance papers by OPs No.2 & 3, it is necessary to look into the welcome letter as well as the premium receipt policy schedule, etc. As per welcome letter Annexure C-2, deposit slip(Annexure C-3), first premium receipt Annexure C-4 policy schedule Annexure C-5, the address of the complainant has been found mentioned as under:-

                #65 ward no.11, Sector-9, Panchkula, Sector-8

Whereas the correct address of the complainant as per his bank account no. 55116558490(Annexure C-1) is as under:-

                #679, Sector-9, Panchkula.

9.Thus, the OPs No.2 & 3 had sent the welcome letter as well as insurance policy papers at the wrong address. The Ops no.2 & 3 has not adduced any such documentary evidence, which proves the date of the dispatch of welcome letter as well as the mode of delivery of the said welcome letter to the complainant. The OPs No.2 & 3 has merely stated that the welcome letter as well as the insurance policy was sent on 14.10.2020 through DTDC courier vide AWB No.X66911415 but no proof in this regard has been placed on record. It is well settled legal proposition that mere bald assertions, which are not corroborated and substantiated by any adequate, cogent and credible evidence, do not carry any evidentiary value. Moreover, the Ops No.2 & 3, now, has sent the welcome letter(Mark ‘A’) along with insurance policy(Mark ‘B’) afresh by making necessary rectification in the address of the complainant as H.No.679, Sector-9, Panchkula on 19.10.2021, which clearly establishes  the deficiency and lapses on the part of the OPs No.2 & 3 while sending the welcome letter as well as insurance policy in question at the wrong address. As such, the complainant has a valid and genuine grievance against the Ops as he was prevented to exercise his right of cancellation of the policy within free look period of 15 days. Since the OPs No.2 & 3 had evidently sent the welcome letter as well as the insurance policy at the wrong address, the case laws as relied upon by OPs No.2 & 3 are of no help to their case. In view of the above discussion, it is well proved that the OPs No.2 & 3 as well as OP No.1 had rendered the deficient services to the complainant and thus, he is entitled to relief.

10.In relief, the complainant has prayed for the refund of Rs.3,40,000/- along with interest. A compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.30,000/- has also been claimed on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges respectively.

11.As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions against OPs No.1 to 3:-

1. The Ops No.2 & 3 are directed to refund a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum (S.I.) w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
2. The OPs No.2 & 3 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment. The OP No.1 is also burdened with the cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the complainant.
3. The OPs No.2 & 3 are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,500/- to the complainant on account of litigation charges.

 

12.The OPs No.1 to 3 shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OP failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1 to 3. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

Announced on:07.06.2023

 

 

 

 

        Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav      Dr.Sushma Garg          Satpal

                      Member                  Member                  President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                                 Satpal

                                            President