Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/648/2019

Sudarshan Lal Kaura - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Mehra

14 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/648/2019
Date of Institution	:	01/07/2019
Date of Decision	:	14.12.2022

 

 

Sudarshan Lal Kaura s/o Late Sh. Sham lal age 81 years (Senior citizen) r/o H. No. 3159, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.   Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Reliance Centre 5^th floor, OPP Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai 400055 through its General Manager.

2.   Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office SCO 147 & 148, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160019 through its Branch Manager.

3.   Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office at SCF 352 First Floor Sector 9 (Above Bata Showroom), Panchkula, Haryana through its Manager.

.  … Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                        

ARGUED BY		Sh. Ajay Mehra, Counsel for the complainant.
		Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for OPs.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that on the allurement of Sh. Pushpender Kumar employee of Opposite Parties the complainant purchased two policies from OPs by paying one time premium of Rs.3.00 lakh  and 1.00 lakh vide cheque dated 31.8.2017 and 10.9.2017 respectively. It is alleged that the aforesaid employee of OPs assured the complainant that the policy documents would be provided after completing certain formalities but even after lapse of sufficient time neither anybody approached the complainant nor the insurance documents were provided to the complainant.  The Complainant approached the Chandigarh office of OPs which issued receipt of payment of Rs.3 lakh and 1 lakh on 25.9.2018 vide Annexure C-1 and C-2 respectively.  The complainant requested them for refund of amount as no policies have been received by him. Even the complainant vide detailed representation Annexure C-4 requested the Opposite Parties No. 2 to return the amount but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.  Alleging the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties deficiency in service this complaint has been filed. 
2. In their  written statement the Opposite Parties stated that the complainant and his grand daughter Pridhi Kaura proposed for two life insurance policies from Opposite Parties and submitted proposal form dated 31.8.2017 for Reliance Guarantee Money Back Plan with Opposite Parties. The complainant was proposer under both the policies whereas he took the life insurance cover in the name of Pridhi Kaura, which was of Rs.35,79,184/- under Reliance Guaranteed Money Back Plan and Rs.3,03,645/-. Alongwith proposal form Aadhar Card, Income Tax return NOC from parent of Pridhi Kaura was submitted. Thereafter the Opposite Parties issued policy NO.53040515 dated 25.9.2017 and policy No. 53048165 dated 25.09.2017 in favor of complainant. The said policies were sent through speed post and the same were duly delivered to the complainant as per postal confirmation. It is averred that after receiving the policies the complainant did not opt for cancellation of the policy within free look period of 15 days as per regulation 6(2) of IRDA. Meaning thereby he has accepted the terms and conditions of policies.  It is denied that the policy was of single premium. It is further averred that on 6.10.2018 the complainant lodged the complaint with Opposite Parties for cancellation of policy, however, the same was rejected vide letter dated 20.10.2018 as the request for cancellation was beyond the free look period of 15 days. It is stated that the complainant duly received the policy documents but with mala-fide intention concealing the said fact. Denying all other allegations leveled in the complaint it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.  The main dispute involved in the instant complaint is that as per complainant he paid premium amounts of Rs.4.00 lakh for two policies in the name of his grand-daughter  but he was never supplied the policy documents by the OPs despite requests. It is contended by the counsel for the complainant that the complainant never availed any insurance policy as no documents pertaining to insurance policy or otherwise was ever got signed from the complainant nor the complainant was provided with any insurance documents by the OPs. Since the policies in questions were not issued to the complainant therefore, he requested for refund of the premium amount, which was not refunded by the OPs.  On the other hand the allegations of complainant have been vehemently denied by the OPs and stated that the complainant was duly issued the policy documents. .
7.   It is apparent from common proposal form for life insurance in case of unit-linked policy placed on record by the Opposite Party at page 25 to 28 of the file  that the said form has been duly signed by the insured Pridhi Kaura the granddaughter of the complainant and the medical of the insured is also attached therewith. Hence, the plea of the complainant that they did not sign any policy document is falsified and stands rejected.  As far as the allegation of the complainant is that he never received the documents of policies in question is concerned, the track report of the Postal department at  page 91 to 92 placed on record by the Opposite Parties show the status of the item as delivered, hence, this plea of the complainant hold no water, thus, the same is rejected. 
8. From the above we are of the opinion that the complainant  and his  granddaughter the insured duly filled up the proposal form  for the policies in question  and even got the medical of the insured conducted and subsequently received the policies as is apparent from the record. Hence, no case for refund of the premium amount for non-issuance of policies is made out against the OPs.  Thus, the complaint deserves to be dismissed.
9.  In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned

			Sd/-
			[Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member   Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member