| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel) New Delhi – 110016 Case No.542/2010 VIJAY KUMAR ARORA HOUSE NO.63, GROUND FLOOR, BACK INDRAPRASTHA COLONY, SECTOR 30-33, FARIDABAD- 121003 …..COMPLAINANT Vs. - BHARTI AXA LIFE,
NO. 201, SECOND FLOOR, VARDHMAN TRADE CENTRE, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI. - BHARTI AXA LIFE,
UNIT 601-602, RAHEJA TIATENIUM OF WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY, GOREGAON EAST, MUMBAI …........... RESPONDENTS Date of Institution-01.10.2010 Date of Order- 20.10.2023 O R D E R RITU GARODIA-MEMBER - The complaint pertains to deficiency in service on the part of OP in not refunding the premium to the complainant.
- Brief facts stated in complaint are that a phone call was received by complainant from Mr. Vinay Madan who claimed to be an agent of OP. The complainant was informed about a new policy with a lock-in period of 3 years. He was told that the policy can be surrendered after lock-in period without any surrender charges. He was further assured of 15 to 20% return and a 30% bonus after 3 months from the date of issuance of policy.
- A field staff of OP came to complainant’s house and collected a cheque and other requisite documents. A policy was issued with effective date from 22.12.2009 with annual mode of payment. The said Mr. Madan assured the complainant that all benefits will be mentioned in the Agreement.
- After two days, Mr. Madan informed complainant of another scheme called Level Death Benefit with a lock-in period of one year. The complainant was supposed to invest Rs.60,000/- against which 10,000 units will be allotted. He was assured that this policy could be surrendered after one year and the complainant would get prevailing price at that point of time. The complainant issued a cheque for Rs.60,000/-. After two or three days complainant received another call for Mr. Madan, asking him to enhance investment in the aforesaid scheme from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. The complainant became suspicious and told Mr. Madan that he would think over the proposal.
- After a fortnight, the complainant received two policies bearing No.5004696497 and 50047333506. The complainant went through the terms and conditions and found no mention of lock-in period of 3 years and 1 year respectively. No mention of the benefits assured by Mr. Madan was mentioned in the policy. The complainant called Mr. Madan who assured him that he would be soon receiving the documents containing the assured benefits and lock-in period. The complainant also came to know on receipt of policy that he could revoke the policies within 15 days. The complainant failed to get the documents containing assured benefits and lock-in period. The complainant tried to contact Mr. Madan who did not respond and disconnected the phone.
- The complainant called OP on toll-free number where in he was told that the period of these policies for 10 years and 15 years respectively. The complainant lodged a complaint vide letter dated 24.02.2010 and 20.03.2010.
- The complainant time and again requested the OP to cancel the policies bearing no.500-4696497(40,000) and 500-4733506(60,000) and refund the amount paid vide cheques bearing no. 862375 dated 12.12.2009 drawn on PNB and Cheque no.720888 dated 12.12.2009 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank respectively.
- Complainant prays for refund of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.60,000/- with 12% interest per annum, Rs.50,000/- for compensation and Rs.11,000/- for litigation.
- OP in its reply has stated that the complaint is not maintainable. OP states that the policy documents was handed over to the complainant and duly signed by him. The premium paid by complainant includes Policy Charges, Fund Management Charge, Policy Administration charge and Surrender Charge. This was explained to the complainant.
- The policy request form clearly mentioned that the sum insured in one policy is Rs.2,00,000/- with benefit period and paying period of 10 years with an annual premium of Rs.40,000/-. The second policy has the sum insured of Rs.6,00,000/- with benefit period and paying period of 15 years with an annual premium of Rs.60,000/-.
- OP submits that a Free Look period of 15 days are given to policy holders for any disputes but complainant raised no dispute within that time.
- Complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit and has exhibited the following documents:
- Copies of the receipts along with policy specifications are exhibited as Exhibit CW1/A& B.
- Copy of complaint is exhibited as Exhibit CW1/C.
- Copies of letters are exhibited as Exhibit CW1/D Colly.
- OP has filed evidence by way of affidavit and has exhibited the following documents:
- Copy of Benefit Illustration along with explanation and information related to the polices is annexed as Exhibit A and Exhibit B.
- We have considered the pleadings and material on record. It is admitted that the complainant took two policies after paying a premium of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.60,000/- respectively. The date of issuance of policy is 22.12.2009 and 24.12.2009 respectively. The cheques paid to OP dated 12.12.2009. It is admitted by the complainant that he went through the terms and conditions on receipt of the policy. He could not find any mention of lock-in period of one year and three years. He came to know that the policy could be revoked within 15 days i.e. within free look period. He failed to exercise this option or return the policy within the stipulated period of 15 days.
- The complainant first lodged a complaint with OP vide letter dated 24.02.2010 and 20.03.2010 much beyond 15 days. The complainant did not make any complaint with Free Look period. The complainant has not made Mr. Madan a party to the complaint who had allegedly given fraudulent assurance. The complainant has not mentioned the date of receipt of policy or when he called the toll free number of OP.
- Hon’ble NCDRC in PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Revision Petition No. 303 of 2016 has observed:
The plea of the petitioner that the agents of the opposite party mis-sold the insurance policy to him by misrepresenting the facts, has been rightly rejected by the State Commission because on careful perusal of the copy of the proposal forms, it is noticed that the proposal forms were signed by the petitioner/complainant in English and it is witnessed by one Satvir Kaur, From record it transpires that neither the said Satvir Kaur was examined as a witness nor her affidavit was filed by the complainant in support of his claim that he was defrauded to purchase the insurance policies by misrepresenting that it was a policy with one time premium in the nature of fixed deposit which ensured that the amount of deposit shall get doubled in five years. In absence of any evidence of the attesting witness to the proposal forms, we are not inclined to believe the version of the petitioner/complainant. Further, it is not in dispute that terms and conditions of the insurance policy were received by the petitioner along with the policies. On perusal of terms and conditions it is seen that the insurance policies provided for free look period of 15 days which entitled the petitioner to return the policies and seek refund of the premium paid if he was not satisfied with the terms and conditions. Undisputedly, the petitioner did not return the policies, meaning thereby that he had accepted the terms and conditions of the policies. Thus, under the circumstances, we do not find any reason to fault the order of the State Commission which may call for interference. - For the reasons recorded above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and the complaint is dismissed.
- File be consigned to record room.
| |
