STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Mandeep Singh Bains s/o Sh.Gurbax Singh r/o H.No.206, Phase-6, Mohali.

….…Appellant/Complainant

V E R S U S

The Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai through Manager Servicing Branch, 2^nd Floor, SCO No.107-108, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh.

.…..Respondent/Opposite Party  

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

Argued by:   Sh.G.S.Bains, Advocate for the appellant.

                    Sh.Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the respondent.                      

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.06.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2.                    In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Life Insurance Policy from the Opposite Party for Rs.1 lac for a period of 30 years effective from 08.09.2003 at an annual premium of Rs.4320/-. He paid the premiums upto September, 2010. It was stated that the Opposite Party had not supplied the Policy document, to the complainant and, as such, he requested through e-mail dated 20.5.2011 to supply him the same, which was, ultimately, supplied on 30.5.2011. It was further stated that as per the Policy document, the complainant had the right to cancel the Policy by giving notice, in writing, to the Opposite Party, within a period of 15 days of its receipt, and accordingly he sent a written request to the Opposite Party on 1.6.2011 for cancellation of the Policy and refund of the premium amount, which was declined, on the ground, that the request was received beyond the prescribed period. It was further stated that the Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.                    In its written reply, the Opposite Party, stated that complainant obtained the insurance Policy in the year 2003 and paid 8 annual premium installments. It was further stated that the complainant, for the first time after a period of 9 years of the issuance of Policy, made a complaint regarding the non-receipt of the same.  However, in response to his request, a duplicate Policy was provided to him. It was further stated that the complainant obtained the Policy after being satisfied with its terms & conditions. It was further stated that the free look period option could be exercised within 15 days from the date of receipt of Policy document, in the year 2003 and, therefore, the request for cancellation of the Policy, made by him on 01.06.2011 was rightly declined vide letter dated 9.6.2011. It was further stated that, the Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.                    The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.                    After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above. 

6.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

7.                    We have heard the Counsel for the parties and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.                                          The Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that no Policy document was supplied by the Opposite Party, and, therefore, the complainant was not aware of the terms and conditions thereof till 2011. He further submitted that the Policy document was issued to the complainant on his request on 24.05.2011 and the same was received by him on 30.05.2011 and thereafter he applied for the cancellation of Policy within 15 days of free look period but the same was rejected, on the ground, that the same was received beyond the prescribed period.  He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.

9.                                          On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/Opposite Party, submitted that the complainant never raised the dispute with regard to non-receipt of the Policy document till May, 2011 and paid the premiums till 2010 on receipt of due premium notices, and anniversary statements. He further submitted that, on his request, the duplicate Policy document was issued to him on 24.05.2011, whereas, the original Policy document was issued in the year 2003 and, therefore, his request for cancellation of the Policy was rejected, having been received, beyond the prescribed period.  He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal, is liable to be upheld.

10.                 Admittedly, the complainant continued paying the annual premiums for eight years i.e. till September, 2010 on receipt of premium due notices and anniversary statements after the inception of Insurance Policy in September, 2003. However, the complainant raised the objection with regard to non-receipt of the Policy document for the first time in May, 2011. The Opposite Party vide letter dated 07.06.2011, Annexure P-6  informed the complainant that the Policy was issued on 09.09.2003 and the original Policy document was dispatched at his mailing address and the same was not received as undelivered by it.  It was further stated, in the letter, that in order to issue duplicate Policy document, the complainant was required to send indemnity bond, duly notarized on Rs.200/- non-judicial paper alongwith Rs.250/- at the nearest Tata AIG Life Insurance Branches.  It is not disputed that the duplicate Policy document was issued to the complainant on 24.05.2011 and the same was received by him on 30.05.2011 and he submitted his request for cancellation of the Policy on 01.06.2011. However, the issuance of duplicate Policy document did not give the complainant any right to avail of free look period option, which was available to him only in the year 2003 itself when the original Policy was issued. In the present case, the complainant raised the objection with regard to non-receipt of the Policy document after a lapse of 9 years that too after depositing the annual premiums for 8 years. In case, the complainant was not interested in continuing the policy, he should have opted for cancellation of the same immediately after receipt of the premium due notices or the anniversary statements but he failed to do so.  In this situation, the complainant had no right to avail of the free look period after the issuance of duplicate Policy document and, as such, the Opposite Party rightly declined his request vide letter dated 09.06.2011. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the complainant was entitled to the refund of the premium amount paid by him for 8 years as during this period, his life remained covered. It will not be out of place to mention here that during the course of arguments, the Counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that the Opposite Party was still ready to revive the policy provided the complainant deposited the due installments as per the terms and conditions of the Policy but the Counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant was no longer interested in the revival of the same.  There was, therefore, no deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Opposite Party. The complainant is, thus, not entitled to the reliefs claimed by him in the complaint.

11.                 Though, the complainant has not claimed the relief of surrender value, yet he shall be at  liberty to approach the Opposite Party, to get the surrender value under the heading “Guaranteed Surrender Value” mentioned in the Policy. In case, the complainant approaches the Opposite Party then it shall be liable to pay the same to him, as per the terms and conditions of the Policy after duly calculating the same.

12.                 For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is dismissed, with no order, as to costs and the order of the District Forum is upheld..

13.                 Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.                 The file be consigned to Record Room, after compliance.

Pronounced.                                                                                      Sd/-

November 1,2012                  [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER[RETD.]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT         

                                                                                                                        Sd/-                           [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER

cmg