Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/732/2015

Chitranjan Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The LIC of India - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

18 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	732 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	21.12.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	18.04.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Chitranjan Sharma s/o Late Sh.Ram Rattan Sharma, H.No.3143-44, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh 160022

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

The LIC of India, through its Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh 160017

 

….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Complainant in person.

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.P.K.Longia, Advocate.

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant, on the asking of one Sh.Kahi Ram and Sh.M.P.Saini, to get an amount of Rs.31.650 lacs being released by IRDA, Hyderabad, against his previous investment, issued a cheque of Rs.3.50 lacs, dated 29.9.2012 for deposit.  It is averred that Sh.Kashi Ram, agent sent a person on 9.11.2012 to take a snap of complainant’s wife for cancellation of LIC policies and later he collected Rs.3500/- in cash towards stamp duty charges for cancellation of the LIC documents.  However, the LIC did not acknowledge the receipt of Rs.3.50 lacs. It is averred that on 29.1.2013, some officials from Delhi visited complainant and told about issuing of Policy No.333782970 against premium of Rs.1,44,168/- and Policy No.333783049 against premium of Rs.1,53,338/-  and the balance amount of Rs.52,494/- has been refunded on 8.2.2013 by the complainant.  It is pleaded that the complainant pursued the matter regarding the refund of Rs.2,97,506/-, but after much persuasion, the complainant get the refund of Rs.2,33,254/- against the total deposit of Rs.2,97,506/-.  However, the Opposite Party did not refund the balance amount of Rs.64,252/- as well as Rs.4240/- paid to Opposite Party for medical examination of the complainant, though it was not conducted. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the above act & conduct of the Opposite Party as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed reply and admitted the issuance of the policies in question and their cancellation as well as refund thereof.  It is stated that the policy No.333783049 on the life of Sh.Chitranjan Sharma and Policy No.333782970 fvg. Smt.Suman Sharma were completed on the basis of information furnished in signed proposal forms for a sum assured of Rs.15.00 lacs and Rs.14.50 lacs respectively with a total annual premium of Rs.2,97,506/- under both the policies for a term of 15 yrs. in Br. Office 11-W, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. Subsequently, on 20.8.2013, the complainant applied for cancellation of both the policies, the policies could not be cancelled as the period of cooling off cancellation was over, and the same was informed to the complainant accordingly.  That the policy holder sent letter thereafter also requesting for cancellation and refund, which was considered favourably by the corporation and as a special case, the policy was cancelled on 3.3.2014 and a refund of Rs.2,33,254/- was credited to the bank account of the complainant, after making necessary deduction towards medical fee, policy stamps, risk premiums. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

   

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the complainant in person and have also perused the record.

 

5]       The complainant has preferred the present complaint on the score that on the allurement of the agents of the Opposite Party, a cheque of Rs.3.50 lacs was procured and few proposal form and other documents were got signed from the complainant on 29.9.2012 and was encashed on 5.10.2012.  However, on not hearing anything from the side of the OP, the complainant repeatedly visited the office of the OP and requested the refund of the money paid on 29.9.2012, through his request dated 26.12.2012.  In pursuance of his efforts, an amount of Rs.52,494/- was refunded on 8.2.2013, whereas nothing was heard of the remaining  Rs.2,97,506/-.  The complainant was surprised to know that an amount of Rs.2,33,254/- was refunded vide two different electronic credit system, but an amount of Rs.64,252/- and the amount of Rs.4240/- received on account of medical examination, still remained to be disbursed back.  The complainant raised this issue with the Office of Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh.  However, believing the story of the OP and out rightly ignoring the case of the complainant, the complaint of the complainant was dismissed, leaving him with the liberty to contest the same before any other Forum/Court he deemed fit.  The copy of the said order is annexed as Ann.C-4. Though the complainant has placed on record other communications with the OP and its agents, we prefer to ignore the same being not relevant to the amount of Rs.3.50 lacs paid to the OP. 

 

6]       The OP while contesting the case of the complainant, has filed its detailed reply claiming that the amount received from the complainant i.e. Rs.3.50 lacs, was duly considered on the basis of proposal forms received along with the cheque of the said amount and two different policies annexed as Ann.R-1 were issued in the name of the complainant, strictly in accordance with the terms & conditions as well as the IRDA Regulations governing the same. 

 

7]       The OP has claimed that it was incumbent upon the complainant to exercise his 15 days free look option as offered by the OP.  However, the complainant having failed to respond within the stipulated period, was not entitled for the entire refund of the amount of Rs.3.50 lacs, but even then, the OP while considering the claim of the complainant on sympathetic grounds refunded the said amount in three different installments, in terms of the terms & conditions of the policy issued to him, after deducting relevant expenses incurred by it.  Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on its part, has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

8]       From the perusal of the complaint, reply and documents placed on record by the parties, we are of the considered opinion that as the complainant from the very beginning was not in the know of two different policies issued in his name, as he did not receive the policy documents at his end and as per the averments of the complaint, even the excess amount of Rs.52,494/- was refunded on 8.2.2013 on repeated pursuance of the complainant.  The OP has not explained as to why the said excess amount was obtained for more than 5 months by the OP even though it failed to mention any such locus-standi on its part.  This act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service towards the complainant and the complainant has certainly lost some money as he was not able to use the said money, which remained in the custody of the OP for nearly five months, for which he deserves to be adequately compensated. 

 

9]       The other issue with regard to the issuance of the policies on the proposal received by the OP, the complainant remained in total dark about the contents and the terms & conditions of the policies, for the reason he did not receive the copy of the policy document as his end, so as to exercise his 15 days free look option, in terms of the said policy document.  This issue of the receipt of the policy document at the end of the complainant was to be addressed by the Opposite Party, by placing on record the copy of proof of their delivery, but unfortunately, no such evidence has been led by the OP in its defence, whereas the reply of the OP to such allegation is altogether vague & inconclusive.  Even the contents of Para No.14 of the Reply at Page No.14 of the OP, mentioned “However, the policy holder reported that he had not received the policy document although the policy bond were sent through agent for onward transmission.”  It is evident from these pleadings of the OP that it preferred to handover the policy bond/documents issued in the name of the complainant to a third person, whose name & designation has not been disclosed, nor the proof of the delivery of policy bond at the end of the complainant has been brought on record by the OP.  As per the settled principle of law, the onus to prove the delivery of the policy documents, to the complainant, lay at the door of the OP/Insurer, as has been held by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Commission, in Revision Petition No. 1324 of 2012 titled as Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Charan Dass, decided on 01.08.2012, wherein it is held that the onus to prove the delivery of the policy terms & conditions to the consumer was on the Insurance Company and in order to substantiate this, a cogent proof of such delivery by way of a receipt duly signed by the consumer was the only evidence, that could satisfy such factor. Hence, in the present case, the Opposite Parties have failed to bring on record any proof that such terms & conditions, along with warranty clause, were delivered to the Complainant, by preserving such receipt signed by the consumer, as a token of proof of its delivery, enabling it to appraise the same. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent, reliance and trustworthy evidence from the side of the OP, we are left to believe that the complainant’s right to exercise the 15 days free look option, did not begin in the absence of the disclosure of date of delivery of policy documents to the complainant and the act of the OP making necessary deductions under the terms & conditions of the policy, about which the complainant was ignorant, amounted to deficiency in service on its part.  Therefore, the complainant is rightfully entitled to the refund of his remaining amount Rs.64,252/- and the amount of Rs.4240/- received on account of medical examination. However, the OP is only entitled to such deduction as applicable under free look period. 

 

10]      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua OP. The Opposite party is directed as under:-

 

[a]      To refund the balance amount of Rs. Rs.68,492/- i.e. (Rs.64,252/- & amount of Rs.4240/-), after making deduction applicable under 15 days free look period only;

 

[b]      To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service.

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite party; thereafter, it shall be liable to pay the awarded amount along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till it is paid.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

18^th April, 2016                                                            

                                                                        Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER