DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: CC/10/2023
Date of Institution: 23.01.2023
Date of Decision: 6.11.2024
Gurpreet Singh son of Sh. Guljar Singh resident of Maan Patti, Near Temple, village and Post Office Kaleke, Tehsil and District Barnala, Punjab, age about is 33 years.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited, Registered & Corporate Office: Unit nos. 401-B, 402, 403 and 404, 4th Floor, Inspire BKC, G Block, BKC Main Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051.
2. Reliance Securities Limited, Agent of OP no. 1, Reliance Securities Limited- 11th Floor, R Tech Park, Nirlon Compound, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon, East Mumabi-400063, Maharashtra.
3. Mr. Aditya, Agent of Opposite Party No. 1 & 2, Mobile No. 97182-54871, 85870-16527 c/o Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited, Registered & Corporate Office: Unit nos. 401-B, 402, 403 and 404, 4th Floor, Inspire BKC, G Block, BKC Main Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Present: Sh. M.S. Sekhon Adv counsel for complainant.
Sh. Dhiraj Kumar Adv counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2.
Opposite party No. 3 exparte.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover: President
2. Smt. Urmila Kumari: Member
(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited, Registered & Corporate Office: Unit nos. 401-B, 402, 403 and 404, 4th Floor, Inspire BKC, G Block, BKC Main Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 & others (in short the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant is the owner in possession of land situated in the revenue limits of village Kaleke, Tehsil and District Barnala. It is alleged that in the month of August, 2020 the complainant started receiving phone calls from various phone numbers such as 97182-54871, 85870-16527 from a person alleging his name as Aditya, who is the agent of OP no.1 and 2 and said person told the complainant that they would get a mobile tower of 'Reliance Company' installed within the premises of the complainant but the said agent had also made condition to the complainant that at first the complainant has to buy the Insurance Policies to get a mobile tower of 'Reliance Company' installed within the premises of the complainant and said OP no.3 preferred many offers to the complainant that they would pay the complainant Rs.30,000/- per month, Rs.5 lac in the beginning after the installation of tower and the remaining amount of insurance policies to be made by the complainant after the installation of mobile tower and the 'Reliance Company' of which mobile tower is being offered/recommended to be installed, would refund the first premium, which would be paid at the beginning of the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant belongs to a poor family and is handicapped by 50% of his body, there was not need and interest to buy the insurance policies as he was a poor/unemployed person, but after much consideration upon the offers provided by OP no.3 on behalf of OP no.1 and 2 the complainant got ready to get the mobile tower of 'Reliance Company' installed within his premises in the above said land which is in the name of the complainant. It is further alleged that thereafter when OP no.3 telephone the complainant then the complainant accepted the offers provided by OP no.3 but on the condition of insurance policies to be made, the complainant disclosed the said agent that he is handicapped person and the test/examination of his medical-examination to get the insurance policies, might not be passed, on this the OP no.3 told the complainant that "Aap Fikar Na Karo, Vo Hum Khud Ba Khud Karvake Denge', the translation of the same runs as that you don't worry about it, that would be got done by us ourselves" and your insurance policies would be done by his own conduct and the OP no.3 asked the complainant about the identify documents of the complainant and due to this the complainant sent the said agent i.e. OP no.3 his all identity documents such as copy of Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, photographs etc. Further, a sum of Rs.29,999.86/- as 'Premium' bearing policy no.53806026, was got transferred by OP no.3 from the bank account of the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant paid further amount to get the insurance policies from other companies, recommended by OP no.3. It is further alleged that OPs did not get any mobile tower installed in the land of the complainant till date and OP no.3 has been lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. It is further alleged that the complainant many times requested the OPs to get installed the mobile tower in his land as promised but to no effect, as such, the complainant requested the OPs to refund the amount of premium paid by him against such offers. But ultimately the complainant was refused by the OPs and as such, the complaint of the complainant was not redressed by the OPs. Thereafter, the complainant got served a legal notice dated 6.10.2022 upon the Ops but to no effect. The said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in the service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.-
- The opposite parties may be directed to install the mobile tower in the land of the complainant or make the refund of Rs. 29,999.86/- the premium payment.
- Further, to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of compensation for causing mental harassment and agony and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 appeared and filed written version by taking legal objections on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant suppressed the material facts from this Commission. The complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. The present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious etc.
4. On merits, it is submitted that no such false assurance of installation of mobile tower was given to the complainant. Further, the answering opposite party has not authorized any Agent/Employee to give such false assurance to any of its customer. It is further alleged that the subject policy in question is sourced through Reliance Securities Limited who a Corporate Agent of the Company and the Company do not have any kind of relationship with Mr. Aditya who had given such false assurance to the complainant and the subject policy is issued based on the documents provided by the complainant and purely on the terms and conditions accepted by the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant is a salaried person as disclosed by him at the time of purchasing the policy and moreover he provided their bank account maintained at Chandigarh and now he put forth a false story just to get undue benefits from this Commission. It is further submitted that the complainant himself willing to show his interest to purchase Life Insurance Policy of the replying opposite party and for this he approached the advisor of the replying opposite party and the complainant got the entire information regarding all the plans of the replying opposite party and thereafter after understanding all the terms and conditions of all the plans only thereafter he opted to purchase Reliance Nippon Life Fixed Money Back Plan Insurance Policy of the replying opposite party and for this the complainant filled the Proposal Form No.TN- 902121 on 30.10.2020 and at the time of filling the above said Proposal Form, the complainant opted to pay Rs.29,999.86/- annual premium against the Sum Assured of Rs.2,62,103/- and thereafter the policy was dispatched to the complainant through speed post and the same was duly received by him. It is further alleged that after receiving the Proposal Form and going through the entire contents of the Proposal Form, the Underwriters of the policy had issued the Insurance Policy bearing No. 53806026 to the complainant and sent the Policy documents along with all terms and conditions of the Policy to the complainant on the given address and the same was received by the complainant and the same are in his possession. It is specifically mentioned that as per the provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938 IRDA Act, 1999 and rules and regulations made there under the insured have an option to reconsider the policy under the garb of Free Look Period i.e. Free Look Period means "The insured have the option to cancel the policy within for 15 calendar days from receipt of this policy document by giving the opposite parties, in writing the reason for such cancellation. It is further alleged that the answering opposite party deals only in selling Life Insurance and nothing else. It is submitted that the replying opposite party do their work as per the Insurance Law as applicable within Indian Territory and any notice/phone calls are received by the complainant for payment of premium, it is the duty of the Company to remind to their customer about payment of premiums due under the subject policy(ies). It is further alleged that insurance being a contract between the Policyholder and the Company, both the parties are governed by the Terms and Conditions mentioned in the Policy Document and all the benefits are payable strictly as per the policy terms and conditions. Further, it is pertinent to note that in any case, the insurance Company is not liable to refund the premium amount to the complainant because as per the Terms and Conditions of the policy, the company had taken risk on life of the Life Assured for the period for which the premium was paid. It is further alleged that the legal notice of the complainant is duly replied by the answering opposite party vide its reply dated 17.11.2022 wherein, the request of the complainant for refund of premium was declined. All other allegations of the complaint are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
5. The opposite party No. 3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 6.3.2023 due to non appearance.
6. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has suffered the statement that I do not want to file any rejoinder against the written version of opposite parties 1 & 2.
7. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, copy of policy Ex.C-2, copy of notice Ex.C-3, postal receipts Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6, affidavit of complainant Ex.C-7, copy of detail of conversation Ex.C-8 and memory card Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence.
8. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Animesh Mishra Ex.O.P1.2/1 and closed the evidence.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
10. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that in the month of August, 2020 the complainant started receiving phone calls from various phone numbers such as 97182-54871, 85870-16527 from a person alleging his name as Aditya, who is the agent of opposite parties No.1 and 2 and said person told the complainant that they would get a mobile tower of 'Reliance Company' installed within the premises of the complainant but the said agent had also made condition to the complainant that at first the complainant has to buy the Insurance Policies to get a mobile tower of 'Reliance Company' installed within the premises of the complainant and said OP no.3 preferred many offers to the complainant that they would pay the complainant Rs.30,000/- per month, Rs.5 lac in the beginning after the installation of tower and the remaining amount of insurance policies to be made by the complainant after the installation of mobile tower and the 'Reliance Company' of which mobile tower is being offered/recommended to be installed, would refund the first premium, which would be paid at the beginning of the complainant. It is further argued that after much consideration upon the offers provided by opposite party No.3 on behalf of opposite parties No.1 and 2 the complainant got ready to get the mobile tower of 'Reliance Company' installed within his premises in the above said land which is in the name of the complainant. It is further argued that the complainant sent the said agent i.e. OP no.3 his all identity documents such as copy of Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, photographs etc. and a sum of Rs. 29,999.86/- as 'Premium' bearing policy No.53806026 was got transferred by OP No.3 from the bank account of the complainant. It is further argued that opposite parties did not get any mobile tower installed in the land of the complainant till date and the opposite party No.3 has been lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. It is further argued that the complainant many times requested the opposite parties to get installed the mobile tower in his land as promised but to no effect, as such the complainant requested the OPs to refund the amount of premium paid by him against such offers but ultimately the complainant was refused by the opposite parties. It is further argued that thereafter the complainant got served a legal notice dated 6.10.2022 upon the opposite parties but to no effect.
11. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 argued that no such false assurance of installation of mobile tower was given to the complainant and opposite parties have not authorized any Agent/Employee to give such false assurance to any of its customer. It is further argued that the subject policy in question is sourced through Reliance Securities Limited who a Corporate Agent of the Company and the Company do not have any kind of relationship with Mr. Aditya who had given such false assurance to the complainant and the subject policy is issued based on the documents provided by the complainant and purely on the terms and conditions accepted by the complainant. It is further argued after understanding all the terms and conditions of all the plans he opted to purchase Reliance Nippon Life Fixed Money Back Plan Insurance Policy of the opposite parties and for this the complainant filled the Proposal Form No.TN- 902121 on 30.10.2020 and at the time of filling the above said Proposal Form the complainant opted to pay Rs. 29,999.86/- annual premium against the Sum Assured of Rs. 2,62,103/- and thereafter the policy bearing No. 53806026 was dispatched to the complainant through speed post and the same was duly received by him. It is further argued that insurance being a contract between the Policyholder and the Company and both the parties are governed by the Terms and Conditions mentioned in the Policy Document and all the benefits are payable strictly as per the policy terms and conditions. It is further argued that the legal notice of the complainant is duly replied by the opposite parties vide its reply dated 17.11.2022 wherein, the request of the complainant for refund of premium was declined. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 further argued that the policy in question has already been lapsed as the complainant has purchased the policy on 4.11.2020 and thereafter no premium has been paid. It is further argued that the present complaint is time barred as the cause of action has been accrued to the complainant on 4.11.2020 and the present complaint is filed on 23.1.2023 after the gap of more than two years, so the present complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
12. We have gone through the facts and evidence produced by the parties. We have perused the copy of insurance policy Ex.C-2 placed on record by the complainant from which it shows the date of commencement of policy 4th November, 2020 and the total installment premium for year 1 shows as Rs. 29,999.86/-. In Ex.C-2 it is further mentioned that premium due on 4th November every year. But the complainant has failed to produce any evidence to prove the fact that the complainant has been continuously paid the premium of the policy in question and the said policy is running continuously. Moreover, from the perusal of file it established that the complainant has taken the policy in question on 4.11.2020 and the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 23.1.2023 after the gap of more than two years so the same is beyond limitation. The complainant has produced the conversation/chat with the opposite party No. 3 and also produced the memory card as Ex.C-9. The complainant has produced the evidence as electronic evidence, but the complainant failed to produce any certificate required Under Section 65B of Evidence Act now Section 63 in Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023. Therefore, the complainant failed to prove the reliability of electronic evidence as produced by him as Ex.C-8 & Ex.C-9.
13. We have further observed that the complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands as the complainant concealed that the policy produced by him as Ex.C-2 has already been lapsed. As per the terms and conditions of the policy if policyholder is not satisfied with the features or the terms and conditions of the policy he can withdraw/return the policy within 15 days i.e. under the “Free Look Period” provision. But the complainant also failed to prove that he approached the opposite parties (insurance company) for return or withdrawal of alleged policy. It seems that the complainant created false story in his complaint to mislead this Commission by false and frivolous facts and circumstances. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the present complaint is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- which shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
6th Day of November, 2024
(Ashish Kumar Grover)
President
(Urmila Kumari)
Member
