DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: RBT/CC/2018/89
Date of Institution: 08.02.2018/29.11.2021
Date of Decision: 07.06.2022
Gulzar Singh son of Sh. Joginder Singh, Aged 55 years, resident of Village-Bhittewad Tehsil-Ajnala, Amritsar, Punjab.
…Complainant
Versus
TATA AIA Life Insurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Manager/Authorized Person having its branch at 3rd Floor, SCO-25, District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab-143001.
…Opposite Party
Complaint Under Section 11 & 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date).
Present: Sh. Ravinder Singh Adv counsel for complainant.
Sh. Mohan Arora Adv counsel for the opposite party.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover: President
2. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member
(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT):
1. The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant Amritpal Singh filed the present complaint under Section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against TATA AIA Life Insurance Company Limited (in short the opposite party).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant on the advice of opposite party’s officer Ms. Sarabjot Kaur obtained a non-ulip life insurance policy from the opposite party and paid Rs. 25,938/- by Cheque on dated 17.10.2016 for application No. C191700484. It is alleged by the complainant that despite receiving the policy premium the opposite party failed to deliver the original insurance policy documents to the complainant till date and in this regard the complaint made several requests/complaints to the opposite party to deliver the original policy documents through call centre No. 18602669966. It is further alleged that the opposite party assured the complainant that policy documents will deliver to your residential address within 30 days. But till today no original policy documents have been delivered by the opposite party to the complainant. The above said act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.-
1) The opposite party may be directed to issue original policy documents to complainant.
2) To pay Rs. 30,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party filed written statement taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds of maintainability, no cause of action, not come with clean hands etc. It is further submitted that Gulzar Singh had submitted to the opposite party a proposal/application dated 17.10.2016 for the purchase of TATA AIA Life Insurance Smart Income Plus Plan for his son namely Amritpal Singh who is the life assured in the said policy, where the sum assured was Rs. 2,75,000/- policy term was 25 years, premium paying term was 12 years and annual premium was Rs. 25,938/- inclusive of service tax which was paid by him vide cheque/DD No. 698349 drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, Amritsar and consequently a policy was issued bearing No. C191700484 dated 18.10.2016 and the said policy commenced on 18.10.2016. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant paid the premium of Rs. 25,938/- through cheque dated 17.10.2016 and filled up the proposal application. The opposite party further alleged that the original policy was dispatched to the complainant on 26.10.2016 through Speed Post receipt No. ED1477252261N and the same was duly received by him at the address mentioned in the proposal and after receipt of the policy by the complainant he admitted the factum of receipt of the policy documents in phone calls made by the opposite party. All the other allegations of the complainant are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
4. In order to prove the case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of premium certificate Ex.C-2 and closed the evidence.
5. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Harsimran Singh Ex.O.P1, copy of authority letter Ex.O.P2, copy of the proposal form Ex.O.P3, copy of the policy (1-14 pages) Ex.O.P4, copy of the sale benefit illustration Ex.O.P5, copy of premium payment notice Ex.O.P6, copy of the calling sheet Ex.O.P7, copy of reduced paid up payment notice Ex.O.P8 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record on the file.
7. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had obtained a non-ulip life insurance policy from the opposite party and paid Rs. 25,938/- by Cheque on 17.10.2016. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for complainant that despite receiving the policy premium the opposite party failed to deliver the original insurance policy documents to the complainant till date despite the fact that the opposite party assured the complainant that policy documents will be delivered to your residential address within 30 days. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite party argued that Sh. Gulzar Singh had submitted a proposal/application dated 17.10.2016 for the purchase of TATA AIA Life Insurance Smart Income Plus Plan for his son namely Amritpal Singh who is the life assured in the said policy and paid the premium of Rs. 25,938/- through cheque dated 17.10.2016 and filled up the proposal application. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party further argued that the original policy was dispatched to the complainant on 26.10.2016 through Speed Post receipt No. ED1477252261N and the same was duly received by him at the address mentioned in the proposal.
8. On the perusal of record it is established that the opposite party has failed to rebut the allegation of complainant that till date the original policy documents have not been supplied/delivered to the complainant. Moreover, the opposite party mentioned in its written version that the original policy was dispatched to the complainant on 26.10.2016 through Speed Post receipt No. ED1477252261N and the same was duly received by him at the address mentioned in the proposal. But the opposite party has failed to place on record the above said speed post receipt dated 26.10.2016 to prove that the original policy documents have been sent to the complainant by the opposite party within time. Even nothing has been placed on record by the opposite party to prove that till date the original policy documents have been supplied/delivered to the complainant against proper receipt. Therefore, from the facts mentioned above it is proved that there is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
9. In view of the above discussion the present complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party and the opposite party is directed to issue original policy documents to the complainant and the opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs. 2,200/- on account of litigation expenses. Compliance of the 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 will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
7th Day of June, 2022
(Ashish Kumar Grover)
President
(Navdeep Kumar Garg)
Member
