Haryana

Karnal

CC/565/2021

Jitender Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Tapan Verma

04 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 565 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.12.10.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:04.05.2023

 

Jitender Kumar aged about 31 years son of Shri Shree Ram, resident of village Budha Khera, tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company, Sector-12, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

 

2.     Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company, Unit no.401-B, 402, 403 and 404, 4^th floor Inspire-BKC, G Block, BKC Main Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051, through its CEO/MD/Authorized Signatory.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                   

Argued by: Shri Tapan Verma, counsel for complainant

                   Shri Chandbir Mandhan, counsel for the OPs.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that in the first week of February 2021, the representative of the company of the OPs had visited the house of the complainant and started insisting the complainant for purchasing Life Insurance Policy product name: Reliance Guaranteed Money Back Plan and being convinced from said proposal the complainant had agreed to purchase the aforesaid Insurance policy and accordingly on 02.02.2021, complainant had paid the premium amount of Rs.17,017/- to the company of the OPs through cheque no.2313405 and the company of the OPs after receipt of the premium amount has issued the receipt no.TB-0043506053 in favour of the complainant. After receiving the premium amount and after issuing receipt, the representative of OPs had assured the complainant that the policy documents will be sent to his residential house direct from the office of the OP no.2 within 21 days from the date of receipt of first premium. Even after lapse of agreed 21 days, the policy documents have not been supplied to the complainant. After waiting sufficient time, when the policy documents were not supplied by the OPs, complainant being fed up approached the OP no.1 and requested for cancellation of insurance policy. On this, the representative of the OPs had got signature of the complainant on some printed unfilled documents and had given an assurance that the aforesaid insurance policy will be cancelled and premium amount deposited by him will be refunded within 30 days through bank transaction. After lapse of period of 30 days, the premium deposited by the complainant has not been refunded to the complainant and OPs started lingered the matter on one pretext or the other and on 10.08.2021, OPs sent a letter, vide which it has been allegedly intimated that “ we sincerely regret out inability to process your request for policy cancellation in view of /based on above policy is beyond freelook period”.  However, this reason is not justified in the eyes of law, because till date the policy documents have not been supplied to the complainant, so the question of beyond freelook period does not arise at all. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the proposal form received in the office of OPs, wherein proposer has proposed for Reliance’s Guaranteed Money Back. That believing the information as regard profession/business, income, state of health and other information given in the proposal form to be correct, OPs issued a policy no. 53867055 dated 03.02.2021 for the policy term 15 years and policy premium term of 10 years, for the benefits details in policy for which life assured was to make the yearly installment of Rs.17,017/-. It has further pleaded that OPs have rightly declined the request of the complainant for cancellation of the policy, vide letter dated 10.08.2021. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant by concealing the material facts. As per record of the OPs, the policy kit was dispatched to the address of the complainant on 05.02.2021, vide POD no.EP801343383IN. Lateron, a request was received from the complainant for another set of the policy, OP believing on the words of the complainant, again re-dispatched the policy on 09.03.2021, vide speed post no.EM6818058071N and lateron OPs received a request for cancellation of the policy with a freelook period on 04.08.2021. OPs rejected the request of complainant for cancellation of the policy within freelook period, as the same was not applied within freelook in period. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have also been denied by the OPs and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of letter dated 10.08.2021 by OPs  to complainant regarding cancellation of the policy in question Ex.C1, copy of premium receipt dated 02.02.2021 Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on 19.09.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Nikunj Chikani Ex.OPW1/A, copy of detail form Ex.OP1, copy of freelook cancellation request Ex.OP2, copy of letter dated 10.08.2021 by OPs  to complainant regarding cancellation of the policy in question Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on 04.01.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant has obtained a Reliance Guaranteed Money Back Plan policy from the OPs and paid the premium amount of Rs.17,017/-. After receipt the premium amount, OPs failed to supply the policy documents within stipulated period. After, waiting sufficient time, complainant requested the OPs several times to supply the policy documents but OPs failed to do so. After waiting sufficient time, complainant requested the OPs for cancellation of the policy in question but on 10.08.2021, OPs have declined the request of complainant regarding cancellation of the policy and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that as per record of the OPs, the policy kit was dispatched to the address of the complainant on 05.02.202 and lateron, on the request of complainant, another set of policy again re-dispatched to the complainant 09.03.2021.  OPs received a request for cancellation of the policy, OPs rejected the same, vide letter dated 10.08.2021, as the same was not sent within freelook in period and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, complainant purchased the policy in question on 03.02.2021 and the mode of premium was annual. It is also admitted that complainant has paid premium amount of Rs.17017/- to the OPs. It is also admitted that OPs have denied to refund the premium amount on the ground that complainant has not approached the OPs within freelook period of fifteen days for cancellation of the policy in question.

11.           As per the version of the complainant, no policy was supplied to him after waiting sufficient long time. Complainant contacted the OPs number of times and requested to issue the insurance policy but OPs always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Complainant approached the OPs several times for issuing the insurance policy or refund of his amount but nothing was done by the OPs but on 10.08.2021, the request of complainant for cancellation of the policy in question has been rejected.

12.           As per the version of the OPs, complainant was duly informed with the features or terms and conditions of the policy. Insurance policy was dispatched to the complainant to the address of the complainant on 05.02.2021, vide POD no.EP801343383IN. Lateron, the policy was again re-dispatched on 09.03.2021, vide speed post no.EM6818058071N and lateron OPs received a request for cancellation of the policy with a freelook period on 04.08.2021. OPs rejected the request of complainant for cancellation of the policy, as the same was not applied within freelook in period.

13.           The onus to prove its version was relied upon the OPs but OPs have miserably failed to prove its version by leading cogent and convincing evidence, that the all the terms and conditions of the policy were explained and supplied to the complainant within stipulated period. Had it been delivered by the OPs as alleged by them, he would have placed on file, the receipt or any other document in respect of supply of the policy to the complainant. Meaning, thereby, OPs have not supplied the policy document to the complainant on or before complaining the complaints by the complainant. Hence, plea taken by the OPs has no force. In this regard, we relied upon case titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd Versus Anil Manglunia 2016 (1) CPR 150 (NC),wherein Hon’ble National Commission held that OPs failed to provide policy clause to the complainant and rejected genuine claim of the complainant. Hence, they do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

 14.          Further,  Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Usha Yadav & others 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 111, has held as under:-

                It seems that the Insurance Companies are only interested in earning the premiums which are rather too stiff now a days, but are not keen and are found to be evasive to discharge their liability. In large number of cases, the Insurance companies make the effected people to fight for getting their genuine claims. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreements, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. This is, thus pressed into service to either repudiate the claim or to reject the same. The Insurance Companies normally build their case on such clauses of the policy, but would adopt methods which would not be governed by the strict conditions contained in the policy.

 

 15.          Keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down in the abovesaid judgments, facts and circumstances of the complaint, we are of the considered view that act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

16.           It is an admitted fact that complainant had paid as premium amount of Rs.17017/- to the OPs. Hence, he is entitled for the said amount alongwith interest, compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation expense.

17.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund 17017/- (Rs. seventeen thousand seventeen only) to the complainant @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.3300/- towards the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:04.05.2023     

                                                               

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                           Member                          Member