| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.271 of 15-09-2017 Decided on 19-07-2018 Balbir Singh aged about 44 years S/o Basant Singh R/o Village Aklia Kalan, Bathinda, Tehsil & District Bathinda ........Complainant Versus 1.Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager. 2.Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jeewan Parkash, Divisional Office, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Dugri Ludhiana-141002, through its Divisional Manager. 3.Darshan Singh, CM Club Member, LIC of India, Bathinda, Bathinda R/o C/o Kot Fatta, Distt. Bathinda. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh.Amandeep Singh Sohi, Advocate. For opposite party Nos.1 & 2: Sh.Inderjit Singh, Advocate. For opposite party No.3: Sh.H.S Dhanoa, Advocate. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Balbir Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that opposite party No.3, being the agent of opposite party Nos.1 and 2, allured him for purchase of LIC policy by way of depositing of fixed amount in the shape of FDR for the period of 10 years. The complainant was assured that he will be entitled to withdraw amount of FDR at any stage in case of need of money and it shall be refunded without any deductions. Bonafidely believing the assurance of opposite party No.3, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.3,05,000/- with opposite party Nos.1 and 2 in the shape of fixed deposit against proper receipt on 28.7.2017. Opposite party No.3 provided the complainant policy bearing No.302944422 and assured him that the policy shall be received by him within a few days. It is alleged that the complainant has not received any policy from opposite parties although a period of more than five months has already elapsed. He repeatedly requested opposite parties to issue him policy alongwith detailed terms and conditions, but to no effect. Opposite parties have been putting off the matter on one or other false pretext and they have failed to supply him policy. As such, the complainant requested opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to cancel the policy and refund the total amount, but to his utter dismay and surprise, they issued the surrender value quotation in his favour and disclosed that he will get the refund of Rs.2,08,892/- only in case he wants to get the policy cancelled and get the refund of the total amount. This surrender value quotation is totally wrong, illegal, null and void. The complainant is not bound by it. He is entitled to get refund of the total amount deposited by him with opposite parties i.e. Rs.3,05,000/- as he has not been issued any policy containing detailed terms and conditions. He also got issued the legal notice dated 27.7.2017 to opposite parties through his counsel calling upon them to refund him total amount with up to date interest, but to no effect. He has also claimed interest @12% per annum on this amount from the date of deposit. It is also case of the complainant that due to illegal and arbitrary act of opposite parties, he has suffered from great mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and financial loss. For these sufferings, he has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- besides costs of Rs.5500/-. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing their written version. In the joint written version, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have raised the legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form. The complainant has no locus-standi or cause-of-action to file the complaint. He has not approached this Forum with clean hands and he has suppressed the true and material facts from this Forum. As per opposite party Nos.1 and 2, Darshan Singh (opposite party No.3) having agency code No.05159174 is their agent and he is working under the organization of Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Development Officer having code No.01084030 and he submitted the proposal form of the complainant with them for purchase of the policy. After scrutiny of the proposal form and finding the same in order, policy bearing No.302944422 with DOC 28.3.2017 under T/T 817-10 single premium for a total premium of Rs.3,05,088/- (i.e. premium Rs.2,94,060/-, service tax Rs.10,292/- and cess Rs.736/-) with risk cover of Rs.4 lakhs was generated. As per office record, original policy printed on 8.4.2017 was issued and delivered by opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Development Officer, who further delivered the policy to Darshan Singh (opposite party No.3) for its further delivery to the complainant and as confirmed by opposite party No.3, he delivered the complete policy documents to the complainant Balbir Singh. Thereafter the complainant with malafide intention and in order to get his money back, knowingly applied for cancellation of the policy after about six months from the date of receipt of policy. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 clarified the matter to the complainant that as he has not applied for the cancellation of the policy within free look period of 15 days, so the policy cannot be cancelled at this stage. However, he is at liberty to surrender the policy. Accordingly, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 also sent surrender value quotation to the complainant, as per terms and conditions of the policy, thereby conveying him that as per terms and conditions of the policy, he is entitled to surrender value of the policy as per details as under:- First year: 70% of single premium excluding taxes and extra premium, if any. Thereafter, 90% of single premium excluding taxes and extra premium, if any.
It is further pleaded that as the inception of the policy is in first year so the complainant was conveyed that an amount of Rs.2,08,892/- is payable to him on the surrender of the policy and on completion of the formalities, amount shall be transferred in his account, but he himself has not completed the formalities and he has filed this complaint on flimsy grounds. Further legal objections are that the intricate questions of law and facts are involved in this complaint. They require voluminous documents and evidence for determination. It is not possible in the summary procedure under 'Act'. The appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the civil court. There is neither any deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party Nos.1 and 2. The complainant is estopped by his own act, conduct and acquiescence from filing the complaint. The complaint has been filed only to injure the goodwill and reputation of opposite party Nos.1 and 2. Even otherwise, it is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant and liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is denied that there was any allurement on the part of opposite party No.3. The complainant himself approached opposite party Nos.1 and 2 through opposite party No.3 and submitted the proposal form for purchase of the policy after getting himself aware about the terms and conditions and features of the policy. It is admitted that the complainant paid the premium after fully getting himself aware about the terms and conditions and features of the policy. In further written version, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have reiterated their stand as taken in the legal objections and detailed above and controverted all other averments of the complainant. In the end, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have prayed for dismissal of complaint. In the written version, opposite party No.3 has also raised the legal objections regarding maintainability of complaint, locus-standi and cause-of-action to file the complaint by the complainant. On merits, it is admitted that opposite party No.3 is an agent of opposite party Nos.1 and 2. It is denied that opposite party No.3 allured the complainant to purchase LIC or the complainant will be entitled to withdraw the amount of FDR at any stage. It is also pleaded that the complainant himself purchased the policy and filled the proposal form. It is admitted that he has not received any insurance policy and he was making requests to opposite parties for issuance of the policy alongwith detailed terms and conditions. It is further mentioned that opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have neither supplied the insurance policy to opposite party No.3 for being handed over to the complainant nor opposite party No.2 supplied the insurance policy to the complainant directly. In substance, opposite party No.3 supported the version of the complainant regarding non-supply of insurance policy, but all other averments of the complainant are denied. In the end, opposite party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were asked to produce the evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 9.1.2018, (Ex.C1); photocopy of premium receipt, (Ex.C2); photocopies of surrender value quotations, (Ex.C3 and Ex.C4); photocopy of legal notice, (Ex.C5); postal receipts, (Ex.C6 to Ex.C8) and submitted written arguments. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Rajesh Kumar dated 3.4.2018, (Ex.OP1/1); affidavit of Rajesh Kumar dated 3.4.2018, (Ex.OP1/2); photocopy of cheque issue control register, (Ex.OP1/3); specimen of policy bond, (Ex.OP1/4) and closed the evidence. Opposite party No.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Darshan Singh dated 10.4.2018, (Ex.OP3/1); photocopy of proposal form, (Ex.OP3/2); photocopy of policy, (Ex.OP3/3) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file as well as written arguments submitted by learned counsel for complainant. Learned counsel for complainant has submitted that the material facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that opposite party No.3 is agent of opposite party Nos.1 and 2. It is also not disputed that the complainant purchased the policy of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 by depositing Rs.3,05,000/- in the shape of FDR. The version of the complainant is that he was not supplied with policy documents containing terms and conditions. His version is also that he was assured that he can withdraw amount anytime early to maturity of the policy. Therefore, opposite parties were to prove that the complainant was supplied with policy containing all terms and conditions. In the written version, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have pleaded that the policy was delivered to Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Development Officer and he further delivered the policy to Darshan Singh. In this way, it is impliedly admitted that opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have not supplied the policy documents directly to the complainant. Although Darshan Singh has also tendered into evidence his affidavit, (Ex.OP3/1) wherein he has also deposed on oath that he supplied the copy of policy documents to the complainant in the last week of April 2017, but this version is contrary to his pleadings. In the written version, categorical stand of Darshan Singh is that the complainant has not received any policy and he was making requests to opposite party Nos.1 and 2 for issuance of policy. There is also no documentary evidence produced by opposite parties to prove that Rajesh Kumar, Development Officer supplied the policy documents to Darshan Singh and Darshan Singh supplied the same to the complainant. Even otherwise, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 were required to directly supply the policy documents to the complainant and not to development officer or agent. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that as per regulation 6 (2) of the I.R.D.Al( Protection of policy holders' interest)2002 opposite parties were also to inform the complainant by the letter forwarding the policy that he has a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents to review the terms and conditions of the policy and where he disagrees to any of those terms and conditions, he has the option to return the policies, stating the reasons for his objection. In that situation, he is entitled to refund of the premium paid by him, subject to the deduction of a proportionate risk premium. It is neither case of opposite parties nor there is any evidence to prove that opposite party Nos.1 and 2 delivered the insurance policy alongwith letter and other policy documents. Therefore, all these facts show deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party Nos.1 and 2. In such situation, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 were to refund the total amount and not only surrender value. To support these submissions, learned counsel for complainant has cited Decision of Hon'ble State Commission rendered in First Appeal No.1048 of 2015, Decided on 6.4.2016 in case title Shaminder Singh Sohal and Anr. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1 and 2 has submitted that the complaint is result of connivance between the complainant and opposite party No.3. The complainant purchased the policy through opposite party No.3 after understanding all terms and conditions. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have accepted that proposal form and issued the policy. The policy was received by Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Development Officer. Sh.Rajesh Kumar has tendered his affidavit, (Ex.OP1/2) wherein he has also deposed that the policy was delivered to him on 15.4.2017 and he further delivered the policy to Darshan Singh. Of-course, in the written version, Darshan Singh has not corroborated this version, but he has filed affidavit, (Ex.OP3/1) wherein he has deposed that Sh.Rajesh Kumar delivered him the policy for further delivery to Balbir Singh. He further deposed that he further delivered the policy to Balbir Singh. Copy of policy in the name of the complainant is also produced on record by this witness as Ex.OP3/3. Therefore, it stands proved that the policy documents were supplied to the complainant through Darshan Singh. As per condition No.12 of policy, cooling period was 15 days from the date of receipt of policy. The complainant has not availed his option within the stipulated period of 15 days. Therefore, he cannot claim refund of total amount and he also cannot escape from terms and conditions of the policy. As per terms and conditions, the complainant is entitled to surrender value and opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have already expressed their readiness to pay the surrender value as per policy terms and conditions. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party Nos.1 and 2. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions and gone through the case law cited by learned counsel for complainant. Some facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that the complainant through opposite party No.3 purchased the LIC policy by depositing Rs.3,05,000/-. The controversy is that whether the complainant was supplied with policy containing all terms and conditions or not. He has categorically denied from having received the policy. He has placed on record copy of legal notice, (Ex.C5) alongwith postal receipts, (Ex.C6 to Ex.C8). The legal notice was issued on 27.7.2017, but no reply was filed by opposite parties. The version of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 is that the policy was delivered to development officer, who further handed over the same to Darshan Singh, who delivered the same to the complainant. Darshan Singh contested the complaint by filing the written version. In the written version, he has admitted that the complainant used to ask for policy and he was not supplied with the policy. There is nothing in this written version to show that Darshan Singh received the policy documents through Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Development Officer and handed over the same to Darshan Singh. In the affidavit, (Ex.OP3/1), Darshan Singh has taken 'U' turn by deposing that Sh.Rajesh Kumar delivered the policy documents to him and he further delivered the same to the complainant, but without getting any acknowledgment. This version of Darshan Singh is entirely contrary to stand taken in the written version. Therefore, this version is not acceptable. Even otherwise, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 were having no reason to deliver the policy documents to the Development Officer Sh.Rajesh Kumar instead of dispatching the same to the complainant Balbir Singh. The matter can be examined from another angle also. As per Regulation 6 (2) of the I.R.D.A (Protection of policy holders' interest)2002 (in short “the Regulations) while acting under Regulation 6 (1) in forwarding the Policy to the insured, the insurer is to inform by the letter forwarding the Policy that he has a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the Policy documents to review the terms and conditions of the Policy and where the insured disagrees to any of those terms and conditions, he has the option to return the Policies, stating the reasons for his objection. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have neither pleaded this fact in the written version nor produced any evidence to prove that such type of letter was forwarded to the complainant alongwith policy. Therefore, there was non-compliance of Regulation 6 (2) also. In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to refund of amount paid by him as premium. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost against opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and dismissed qua opposite party No.3. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are directed to refund an amount of Rs.3,05,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of receipt till payment, to the complainant. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 19-07-2018 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Jarnail Singh) Member
| |
