Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/60/2016

Megha Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manger, DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance Co. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

11 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Appeal No.	:	60 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	15.02.2016
Date of Decision	:	11.07.2016

 

Megha Singh aged about 59 years, son of S.Naranjan Singh r/o #606, JTPL City, Sector 115, Post Office Landran-140307, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

……Appellant/Complainant

V e r s u s

1. The Manager, DHLF Pramerica Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 4^th  Floor, Tower-B, Building No.9, DLF Cyber City, Phase-3, Gurgaon (Haryana)-122002.
2. The Senior Branch Manager, DHLF Pramerica Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 2941-42, First Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.
3. Sh.Lakhvir Singh, Agent, DHLF Pramerica Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 2941-42, First Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.
4. Sh.Harpreet Singh, Agent, DHLF Pramerica Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 2941-42, First Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondents/Opposite Parties

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.Megha Singh, appellant in person.

                  Sh.Ashok Arora, Advocate for respondents no.1& 2.

                  Respondents no.3 and 4 exparte. 

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                This appeal is directed against an order dated 22.12.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the Forum only) vide which, it dismissed a complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2.         It was case of the complainant that he had purchased one insurance Policy from the respondents, on payment of yearly premium @Rs.30,000/- for 15 years, in the month of August 2011. In December 2011, another Agent of respondents no.1 and 2, contacted him and promised that on paying an additional amount of Rs.25,000/-, his policy aforesaid, would be converted into one time premium payment policy. He paid the said amount. However, he was surprised to receive a policy, again issued for 15 years, with yearly premium. When he contacted his insurance Agent, he told him that above two policies can be converted into a onetime premium payment policy, on payment of an additional amount of Rs.30,000/-. The appellant paid that amount also. Again he received an insurance Policy, on 24.02.2012, which was for a period of 15 years,  and not onetime premium payment policy. The appellant brought above facts to the notice of respondents no.1 and 2. When agent of respondents no.1 and 2 was confronted  with above said position, he took all the tree policies from the appellant to convert them into single/one time premium payment policy. When no response was received, he made a complaint to the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, on 02.11.2012. When no action was taken, he filed a complaint, before the Insurance Ombudsmen on 13.12.2013. The said Officer pronounced award on 10.09.2014, under which, the appellant was refunded an amount of Rs.50,000/-. His entire amount was not returned.
3.         It was specifically alleged that by not converting his three policies into single/onetime premium payment policy, the respondents are guilty of providing deficient service and also committed unfair trade practice, in making false promise, as said, in earlier part of this order. By alleging as above, prayer was made in the complaint, to order refund of the entire amount paid, penalty, compensation etc.
4.         Opposite parties no.1 and 2, in their joint written version stated that for each policy, separate proposal form was filled up by the appellant. On receipt of premium, three policies were issued on 30.08.2011, 11.01.2012 and 24.02.2012. In all the three cases, an option was given to the appellant to get the same cancelled, by giving reasons, within 15 days (free look period), from the date of receipt of the same  and if the above said option is exercised by the policy holder, the Company will deduct only a nominal amount towards stamp duty charges etc. and rest of the amount is liable to be returned.  No such option was exercised by the appellant, to get the policies cancelled, within free look period. Allegations of deficiency in providing service were levelled only in the month of July 2013 i.e. after about two years of issuance of first policy. Refund of amount of Rs.50,000/-, in view of order passed by the Insurance Ombudsman was admitted. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5.         Despite deemed service, none put in appearance on behalf of respondents no.3 and 4, as a result whereof, they were proceeded against exparte by the Forum, on 10.06.2015.
6.         The appellant and respondents no.1 and 2, led evidence, in support of their case.
7.         After hearing the appellant in person, Counsel for respondents no.1 and 2, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum dismissed the complaint, by observing as under:-

“After going through the evidence on record and the rival contentions of the parties, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for the reasons recorded hereinafter. It is evident from the record on file that all the Insurance Policies Nos. 000081627, 000109319, 000119950 for Rs.30,000/-, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.30,000/- with date of commencement as 30.08.2011, 11.01.2012 and 24.02.2012 respectively have been issued to the policy holder on the basis of the proposal forms given/signed by the complainant after understanding of features/terms and conditions of the plans (Annexures R-4 (Colly.) to Annexure R-6 (Colly.). It is not the case of the complainant that he did not sign the application/proposal forms. It is also not the case of the complainant/policyholder that he did not receive the policy documents. In the welcome letters dated 30.08.2011, 11.01.2012 and 24.02.2012 of the policy documents issued to the complainant/policy holder it was clearly stated as under: “…….if you are not satisfied with any aspect of the policy, you can return it to us within 15 days of receipt. For unit link products, we will refund you the fund value on the date of cancellation and any charges paid by you (Post deduction of charges already incurred by us such as medical fees, stamp duty and risk premium for the period covered). For other products, we will refund premium paid less expenses incurred and risk premium for the period covered. In view of the afore-extracted clause, in case, the complainant/policy holder was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the Policy or the same had not been issued, as proposed by him, then it was required of him, to make a request for cancellation thereof, within the free-look-period of 15 days, from the date of receipt of the same, but he did not do so. The complainant is a well-educated and prudent person, and it could not be expected of him, that he did not know the contents of the Policy(s). It also could not be imagined that he did not know that he was required to make a request for cancellation of the same, in case, the terms and conditions were not acceptable to him, within free look period of 15 days. In the instant case, the complainant for the first time made the representation to the OP-Company for cancellation of the policies in question on 18.06.2013 through IGMS (IRDA Website) i.e. after almost two years from the date of the issuance of the first policy. Since the complainant did not apply for cancellation of the Policy, within the free look period of 15 days, from the date of receipt of the same, and as such his request was rightly declined by the OP-Company vide its letter dated 11.07.2014(Annexure R-7). Moreover, it is not understood that if the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the first Insurance Policy then as to why he proposed for the second and the third Insurance Policies. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that since the complainant/policy holder did not raise the issue within the free look period of 15 days, from the date of receipt of the policies document and, therefore, he could not raise a grouse that the Policies were not issued as proposed by him.”

8.         It was noted as a matter of fact that proposal forms were filled up by the appellant for issuance of all the three policies. The signatures of the appellant appeared on all these proposal forms, which have been brought on record by the appellant himself.
9.         To press his claim, it has been stated by the appellant that at some places in the proposal forms, signatures and name of proposer are not mentioned. Be that as may, receipt of policies against payment made, is not denied. There is nothing on record to show that why option to get those policies cancelled, was not exercised within 15 days, from the date of receipt of the policy documents. Further, there is nothing on record to show that the Insurance Agent ever contacted the appellant and all the three policies were handed over to him, at his promise to convert those into a single premium payment policy. Furthermore, it is also an admitted fact, that a complaint was made by the appellant with the Insurance Ombudsman  and vide award dated 10.09.2014, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was returned to him. That order has also become final. Thus, no case is made out, to make interference in the order under challenge.
10.         For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum is upheld.
11.         Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
12.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

11.07.2016

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

Rg