NIRMAL SINGH Vs. BHARTI AXA LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 23.08.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).

(2.) THE brief facts of the case, are that one Mr. Rohit, Financial Advisor/Agent/Sales Person of the Opposite Parties, approached the complainant, on 14.11.2009 and asked him to buy the Life Insurance Policy of the Company. It was stated that the complainant showed his interest and agreed to buy an Insurance Policy in the name of his granddaughter, Ms. Parminder Kaur. It was further stated that the complainant filled and signed the proposal form and also paid Rs.15,000/ - vide cheque No.965900 dated 14.11.2009. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties issued Policy No.5004539697 dated 19.11.2009 (Annexure C -7) in favour of Parminder Kaur for an assured sum of Rs.2,24,989/ -, effective from 19.11.2009 with a grace period of one month. It was further stated that on 24.10.2010, the complainant received a reminder (Annexure C -8) from the Opposite Parties, for payment of next installment of annual premium of Rs.15,000/ - in respect of the said Policy. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties deputed Mr. Vitul, to collect the premium, from the residence of the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant issued cheque No.613553 dated 15.11.2010 (Annexure C -9) in favour of the Company, as annual premium in respect of Policy No.5004539697. It was further stated that after receiving the 2nd installment of annual premium, the Opposite Parties sent a fresh demand letter for the annual premium. It was further stated that despite showing the acknowledgment receipt, the Opposite Parties, refused to entertain the request and gave a warning to the complainant, to deposit the second annual premium, otherwise, Policy No.5004539697 would lapse and the amount would be forfeited. It was further stated that the complainant made several requests, to the Opposite Parties, for making enquiry but they did not give any heed to the same. It was further stated that finally when the complainant demanded his total amount of Rs.30,000/ - alongwith interest, the Opposite Parties refused to refund even a single penny. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, in connivance with each other immediately issued a fresh policy bearing No.5006671381, in favour of the granddaughter of the complainant, for which, he had never requested nor consented nor signed any document. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties themselves forged the signatures of the complainant and attached the photocopies of the identity proof and other supporting documents, which were provided to them at the time of proposing Policy No.5004539697. It was further stated that these acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), seeking directions to the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.30,000/ - alongwith interest @18% per annum; pay Rs.50,000/ - as compensation for mental agony and harassment, besides Rs.11,000/ - as cost of litigation, was filed.

(3.) OPPOSITE Parties No.1 to 3, in their joint written statement, admitted that they received a Proposal Form (Annexure R -1) duly filled up and signed by the complainant seeking life insurance on the life of his granddaughter Ms. Parminder Kaur and they issued the Merit Plus Policy No.500 -4539697 to the complainant, which had an annual premium of Rs.15,000/ - and the duration of payment was yearly (Annual). It was stated that the Opposite Parties received another proposal form (Annexure R -2) alongwith the standard benefit illustration, and other documents from the complainant, seeking insurance on the life of Ms. Parminder Kaur, which was accepted by the Company at standard rates. It was further stated that on 06.12.2010, the Opposite Parties issued the Save Confident Policy No.500 -6671381 to the complainant, which had an annual premium of Rs.15,000/ - and the duration of payment was half yearly (Semi Annual). It was further stated that, in case the Policy holder, was not satisfied with the features or the terms and conditions of the Policy, he could withdraw/return the same within 15 days of the receipt of the Policy Document i.e. under the "Free Look" option. It was further stated that the complainant retained the Policy and did not return the same to the Opposite Parties, for cancellation during the Free Look Period. It was further stated that copy of the proposal form was also sent to the Policyholder, alongwith the Policy Document, to re -examine the replies given by him in the proposal and get the details rectified in case there was any discrepancy, in the same but the complainant as well as the Life Insured never approached the Opposite Parties, for any kind of rectification. It was denied that any amount for second premium was ever submitted by the complainant for the first Policy. It was further stated that inspite of regular notices sent to the complainant, he failed to deposit the premium amount, towards the Policies and hence, the same acquired a lapsed status. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.