1- Smt. Kiran Sharma wife of Sh. Naresh Sharma;
2- Rishita through guardian Mrs. Kiran Sharma;
3- Manik Kalia through guardian Deepak Kalia;
4- Veena Kalia;
All residents of 343-D, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana.
1- M/s Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Pvt. Indiana Business Centre, B-Wing, Ist Floor, Marol-Naka, Akhawana Road, Andheri East, Mumbai, through its Manager.
2- The Branch Manager M/s Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.124, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana.
3- Sh. Sandeep Miglani, Branch Manager M/s Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. SCO no.17, Ist Floor, near Secretariat, Chandigarh Road, Hoshiarpur.
O R D E R
1- Opposite party no.3 Mr. Miglani, branch manager of opposite party no.2, being a neighbourer of the complainant, approached them for investment of their money in different beneficiary plans. He convinced the complainant to do yearly plan in different ways and consequently, obtained cheque of Rs.1,49,000/- from them, to invest in different plans. At that time, Ms Veena Kalia complainant was planning to go abroad, so opposite party no.3 also obtained some post dated cheques with the idea that if she failed to come within time, amount of the cheque may be used as second premium. Opposite party no.3 made number of policies in different names as under:-
Sr. No. Names Policy Nos.
1. Rishita:- 000751331, 52143.
2. Kiran: 751308, 51291, 52180, 52151, 52168,
1532, 51298, 52174, 51317.
3. Manik: 51334, 51333, 51332, 51337, 51342.
4. Veena Kalia: 51958, 51870, 51930, 51488, 51481,
51947, 51468, 51885, 51897.
These policies were made by opposite party no.3, to meet out his contract and with vested interests. He instead of doing 4 policies, made 25 policies and when questioned why he made so many policies in placed of 4, had no answer. Complainants never signed 25 forms, nor had asked for half yearly policies. When second premium/renewal was withdrawn from the bank, came to know about the half yearly policies and it caused shock to all of them. Opposite party no.3 did all these policies in flexi plans, which was not desired by the complainant. He had never disclosed true facts about the policies and rather misled the complainants. All the policies were retained by opposite party no.3 with him. Now they want to cancel all these policies and if there are any charges for cancellation, they shall have to be born by opposite party no.3, as he prepared the policies without their consent or request.
Received letters dated 19.11.2007 and 11.12.2007 from opposite party no.1, requiring details of the cheques issued by the complainant, alongwith bank statements towards the policies. In the meantime, opposite party no.3 approached complainant Ms Veena Kalia, to sort out the matter and suggested not file any litigation. Then, Sh. Rakesh Sabharwal Adv. intervened and on his asking, gave time to opposite party no.3, but he failed to settle the matter. Thereafter, letter of opposite party no.1, was replied, but opposite party no.1 failed to solve the matter regarding policies, despite providing details and they have also failed to cancel the policies and refund the amount. Such act on their part, is claimed amounting to deficiency in service, by filing this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2- Opposite parties in their joint written statement, have controverted allegations of the complainant. They averred that complainants applied and signed application dated 23.9.2006, by free will and consent, so complaint not maintainable and there is no deficiency in service on their part. Complainant had submitted application for insurance in the names mentioned in the application under various plans. Subsequently on receipt of application, initial amount, receipts were issued to the complainants in their respective names.
They were provided detailed description qua policy features including the premium amount to be paid, charges to be levied. After making themselves completely aware qua features of the policies and its terms, they paid the premium amount. Complainant Ms Kiran Sharma was allotted 9 policies; Ms Rishita 2 policies; complainant Manik 5 policies; Ms Veena Kalia 9 policies. Policy holders were made aware about the option of Free Look period of 15 days through its welcome letter delivered to the complainant, alongwith the policy contract. Under the Free Look option, if any discrepancy in the policy document is found, then applicant may exercise the free look option by informing the opposite party in writing. In such cases, request for change in plan could also be considered. But complainant did not avail of the Free Look option, to get rectified the error or to cancel the policies. Complainants accepted all the contracts.
As per terms of the contract dated 15th May, 2007, after six months they again paid second renewal premium, for all the policies but thereafter, failed to pay subsequent renewal premium and consequently, the policies got lapsed. Further pleaded that complainants through their counsel, issued second notice dated 11th January, 2008, withdrawing their first notice dated 11.12.2007. In the second notice, conveyed compromising the matter and that were satisfied with the terms and conditions on which the policies issued and agreed to continue with the same. Thereafter, opposite party received third notice dated 24th January, 2008, again alleging same facts, as alleged by the complainants in their first notice dated 22.11.2007. So, allegations of the complainants are confusing and wrong. Hence, there is no deficiency in service and complaint deserves dismissal.
3- Parties in support of their claims, adduced evidence by way of affidavits and documents. Stood heard through their respective counsels.
4- Though complainants in support of the allegations, have relied on affidavit Ex.CW1/A of Smt. Kiran Sharma complainant and also filed notices Ex.C1 dated 31.10.2007, Ex.C4 dated 24.1.2008, which were replied by opposite party vide reply Ex.C5 and Ex.C6 respectively.
5- Now question is whether opposite party no.3 befooled the complainants, by playing trick with them and despite instructions, instead of preparing 4 policies in favour of the complainants, prepared 25 policies, without their instructions.
6- Entire episode or the controversy can be decided, in view of notice Ex.RA dated 11.1.2008 issued by the complainants through their counsel Sh. Rakesh Sabharwal Adv. Perusal of that notice, which is proved by complainants, by examining its author as a witness, goes to show that the matter has been compounded by the parties and there is no dispute between them qua the insurance policies. According to Sh. Rakesh Sabharwal Adv., this notice was issued by him on instructions of his client i.e. Ms Veena Kalia complainant. Through this notice, she had withdrawn her earlier notice, sent through Sh. Kamaljit Sharma Adv., stating that the matter has been compromised.
7- However, complainant has also placed one certificate Ex.CW dated 20.7.2009 purportedly issued by Sh. Rakesh Sabharwal Adv. on his pad. Vide that certificate, the understanding brought between the parties, was not acted upon as per terms and conditions settled between them. Because Mr. Miglani (opposite partyno.3) had betrayed the same. But author of this certificate Ex.CW has not been examined to prove the same. Whereas opposite party to prove notice Ex.RA, had examined Sh. Sandeep Miglani opposite party no.3. Neither any prayer to examine him made, nor was recalled to prove the certificate Ex.CW. Therefore, it is not proved that certificate Ex.CW was ever given by Sh. Rakesh Sabharwal Adv. to the complainant.
8- In the instant case, statement of account Ex.C8 of the complainant, goes to show that second premium cheque qua the insurance policies, was also paid and encashed. Had there been any trick played by opposite party no.3, by preparing 25 policies, in place of 4, as asked for by the complainants, they would not have paid installments of the second premium. Even if there was any such aspect of committing trick with the complainant by opposite party no.3, parties had settled the same, as is apparent from notice Ex.RA.
9- In view of aforesaid aspects, we do not find any merit in the complaint and as a result, the same is dismissed. Parties are left to bear own costs. Copy of order be provided to the parties free of charge. File be completed and consigned to record room.