State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Yashpal. vs G.M. Bajaj Allianz L.I.Co. Ltd. & Ors. on 24 February, 2020
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. : 256/2017
Date of Presentation: 21.09.2017
Order Reserved on : 01.08.2019
Date of Order : 24.02.2020
......
Yashpal son of Shri Chuni Lal resident of Village Lahar Kotlu Post
Office Sudhial Tehsil Nadaun District Hamirpur (H.P).
...... Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. General Manager Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd.
GE Plaza Airport Road Yerwarda Pune Maharashtra-411
006.
2. Branch Manager Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd.
SCO 45 Pocket 1 NAC Mani Majra Chandigarh-160101.
3. Jitender Kaur (Agent Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company
Ltd. Code No.2300000624) House No.2641 Sector 71 Mohali
Punjab.
......Respondents/Opposite parties
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Appellant : Mr. Harjeet Singh Advocate.
For Respondents No.1&2: Mr. Jagdish Thakur Advocate.
For Respondent No.3 : Ex-parte.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R :-
1. Present appeal is filed against order dated 11.08.2017 passed by Learned District Consumer Forum/ 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
Yashpal Versus G.M. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. F.A. No.256/2017 Commission in consumer complaint No.157/2011 titled Yashpal Versus General Manager Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Shri Yashpal Complainant filed consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act pleaded therein that on dated 21.10.2010 Sh. Amarjit Singh came to the house of complainant and informed that there was a plan of Insurance company to the effect that if complainant would pay an amount of Rs.99000/-(Ninety nine thousand) to Insurance company then amount of Rs.99000/-(Ninety nine thousand) would be refunded alongwith interest to complainant on or before 31.12.2010 and in addition complainant would also receive bonus to the tune of Rs.420000/-(Four lac twenty thousand). It is further pleaded that thereafter cheque to the tune of Rs.99000/-(Ninety nine thousand) was issued. It is pleaded that on dated 13.11.2010 complainant received registered letter from opposite party No.2 and complainant was surprised to see that opposite party No.2 has issued Life Insurance Policy in the name of complainant for a period of twenty years bearing Insurance policy No.0188413726 dated 28.10.2010. It is pleaded that within free look period option complainant requested Insurance company to cancel Insurance policy. It is pleaded that Insurance company did not cancel Insurance policy 2 Yashpal Versus G.M. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. F.A. No.256/2017
within free look period option and committed deficiency in service.
3. Complainant sought relief to the effect that Insurance company be directed to refund amount of Rs.99000/-(Ninety nine thousand) alongwith interest. In addition complainant sought relief to the effect that Insurance company be directed to pay Rs.30000/-(Thirty thousand) as damages. In addition complainant sought relief for payment of Rs.10000/-(Ten thousand) as litigation costs. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
4. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2 pleaded therein that present matter involve complicated allegations of forgery which could not be adjudicated by Consumer Authority in a summary manner. It is further pleaded that Insurance policy was issued for twenty years and it is not possible for Insurance company to cancel the Insurance policy at this stage. It is pleaded that Insurance company did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
5. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted allegations mentioned in consumer complaint. Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission dismissed consumer complaint. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned 3 Yashpal Versus G.M. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. F.A. No.256/2017 DCF/DCC complainant filed present appeal before State Commission.
6. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
7. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether appeal filed by complainant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal and whether free look period option of 15 (Fifteen) days for cancellation of Insurance policy will start from date of commencement of policy mentioned in Insurance policy or will start from date when insured personally received Insurance policy at his residential address?
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
8. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that contents of complaint and rejoinder are correct to the knowledge of deponent. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by complainant.
9. Insurance company filed affidavit of Shri Tarun Vikas Sr. Divisional Manager in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that there are allegation of forgery and jurisdiction of 4 Yashpal Versus G.M. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. F.A. No.256/2017
Consumer Authorities is barred. There is recital in affidavit that policy was not cancelled within free look period option of fifteen days from commencement of Insurance policy. There is recital in affidavit that complainant himself opted for policy of twenty years and Insurance company did not commit any deficiency in service. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by Insurance company.
10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that at the time of issuance of Insurance policy complainant was major and complainant cancelled Insurance policy vide letter dated 13.11.2010 Annexure-C6 within free look period option and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused letter dated 13.11.2010 annexure-C6. Letter dated 13.11.2010 issued to Insurance company by complainant is quoted in toto :-
To M/s Bajaj Alliance G.I.C. Ltd.
SCO 45 Pocket 1 NAC Mani Majra Chandigarh Pin-160101 Subject:- Cancellation of policy No.0188413726 & refund thereof.
It is intimated that the terms and conditions as specificed in the above said policy in favour of Yashpal son of Sh. Chuni Lal Village Laher Kotlu P.O. Didhyal Tehsil Nadaun Distt. Hamirpur (H.P) Pin- 177046 are not acceptable to me, which was seen on 13.11.2010 due to wrong correspondence address incorporated by you. 5
Yashpal Versus G.M. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. F.A. No.256/2017 Hence the policy No.0188413726 may be cancelled and the paid amount may be refunded to me at the earliest to avoid any unnecessary further correspondence. Policy document is also attached.
Date:13.11.2010 Sd/-
Yashpal S/o Sh. Chuni Lal V-Laher Kotlu P.O. Sidhyal Tehsil Nadaun Distt. Hamirpur (H.P) Pin-177046.
11. It is proved on record that in Insurance policy date of commencement of Insurance policy has been mentioned as 28.10.2010 and policy terms has been mentioned as twenty years and premium payment term has also been mentioned as twenty years and due date of last premium has been mentioned as 28.10.2029 and benefit payable has been mentioned as Rs.990000/-(Nine lac Ninety thousand). In view of the fact that Insurance policy was effective w.e.f. 28.10.2010 and in view of fact that complainant has written letter to Insurance company for cancellation of policy on 13.11.2010 with plea that he personally received Insurance policy on 13.11.2010 due to wrong correspondence address mentioned by Insurance company. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant has written letter to Insurance company for cancellation of policy within free look period option.
12. Free look period option is statutory provision prescribed by IRDA to cancel policy within fifteen days. 6
Yashpal Versus G.M. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. F.A. No.256/2017 Insurance company did not file affidavit of postal authority and also did not send interrogatories to postal authority in order to prove that on which date, month and year Insurance policy was personally delivered to complainant. It is held that period of fifteen days would start from personal delivery of Insurance policy to insured in his residential address and will not start from date of commencement of Insurance policy mentioned in Insurance policy by Insurance company. It is held that free look period option starts when insured receive Insurance policy at his residential address.
13. Even Insurance company did not file affidavit of postal authority in order to prove that on which date, month and year Insurance policy was personally delivered to insured Yashpal. Even Insurance company did not send any interrogatories to postal authority in order to prove that when UPC letter relating to cancellation of Insurance policy was submitted in office of postal authority by insured. Hence adverse inference is drawn against Insurance company by State Commission. Complainant has specifically stated in affidavit that he has personally received Insurance policy on 13.11.2010.
14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that in view of fact that complainant has written letter annexure-C6 to Insurance company for 7 Yashpal Versus G.M. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. F.A. No.256/2017 cancellation of policy within free look period option complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.99000/-(Ninety nine thousand) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till actual payment is decided accordingly. it is proved on record that vide annexure-C6 complainant has cancelled the Insurance policy within free look period option. State Commission is of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to direct Insurance company to refund an amount of Rs.99000/-(Ninety nine thousand) alongwith interest.
15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is entitled for damages to the tune of Rs.30000/-(Thirty thousand) is decided accordingly. In view of the fact that complainant has written letter to Insurance company vide annexure-C6 for cancellation of Insurance policy within free look period option State Commission is of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to grant equitable compensation to complainant.
16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is legally entitled for litigation costs to the tune of Rs.10000/-(Ten thousand) is decided accordingly. In view of the fact that vide annexure-C6 8 Yashpal Versus G.M. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. F.A. No.256/2017 complainant has written letter to Insurance company by way of UPC annexure-C7 to cancel the Insurance policy within free look period option State Commission is of the opinion that Insurance company is under legal obligation to pay equitable litigation costs to complainant.
17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance company that in present consumer complaint complainant has leveled allegation of forgery and jurisdiction relating to forgery matter are outside the domain of consumer authority and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that factum of forgery and factum of deficiency in service on the part of Insurance company are entirely two different concepts under law. State Commission is of the opinion that if factum of forgery is severable from deficiency in service in that eventuality Consumer Authority has jurisdiction to dispose of consumer complaint relating to deficiency in service on the part of Insurance company. It is held that in the present matter factum of forgery is severable from deficiency in service on the part of Insurance company.
18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance company that father of complainant namely Sh. Chuni Lal vide annexure-C8 has given in writing 9 Yashpal Versus G.M. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. F.A. No.256/2017 that he was satisfied with Insurance policy and want to continue the policy and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that age of complainant Sh. Yashpal is more than 30 years. Complainant Yashpal was not minor when Insurance policy was obtained from Insurance company. State Commission is of the opinion that any undertaking given by father of complainant namely Sh Chuni Lal to Insurance company vide annexure-C8 without expressed and implied consent of Yashpal is not binding upon Sh. Yashpal complainant because Sh. Chuni Lal has not given undertaking as guardian of Sh. Yashpal and Sh. Yashpal was not minor when Sh. Chuni Lal has given undertaking annexure-C8 placed on record on behalf of complainant Sh. Yashpal. It is well settled law that a person after attaining majority acquired independent status and independent legal rights without any rider from natural guardian.
19. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance company that complainant is not legally entitled for refund of Rs.99000/-(Ninety nine thousand) is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that date of commencement of Insurance policy has been mentioned as 28.10.2010 and Shri Yashpal vide annexure-C6 10 Yashpal Versus G.M. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. F.A. No.256/2017 on dated 13.11.2010 has requested Insurance company to cancel the policy within free look period when complainant personally received copy of Insurance policy and complainant is legally entitled for refund of amount paid to Insurance company.
20. It is well settled law that when two views are possible then view favourable to consumer should be adopted by Consumer Authority. See 2018(1) CLT 468 NC Union of India through GM Western Railway Versus Smt. Vinaya Vilas Sawant. See 2019(4) CPR 851 NC titled Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Dr. Abhijit Purshottam Pathak. State Commission has adopted the view beneficial to consumer keeping in view the fact that Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial Act relating to consumers and keeping in view fact that when two views are possible then view favourable to consumer should be adopted by Consumer Authority in view of ruling cited supra.
21. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance company that by way of overwriting date 16.11.2010 has been changed by complainant to 13.11.2010 vide annexure-C6 and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. Insurance company did not send any interrogatories to Sh. Yashpal relating to overwriting in document annexure-C6. No reasons 11 Yashpal Versus G.M. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. F.A. No.256/2017 assigned by Insurance company as to why Insurance company did not send any interrogatories to Sh. Yashpal relating to overwriting in date in document annexure-C6. It is well settled law that adverse inference could not be drawn against author of document unless attention of author of document is not drawn relating to overwriting in document in question by way of written interrogatories or by way of oral examination. Insurance company did not adopt above stated procedure. Hence it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to give benefit to Insurance company.
22. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance company that complainant is not entitled for litigation costs is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant has engaged Advocate and has also paid litigation costs & other expenses and it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to grant equitable litigation costs to complainant.
23. Facts of case laws cited by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance company i.e. (1) 2014(1) CPJ 188 NC titled Harish Kumar Chadha Versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. (2) 2014(2) CPJ 183 HP titled Tapan Kant Dhar Versus Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and facts 12 Yashpal Versus G.M. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. F.A. No.256/2017 of present case are entirely different. It is held that ruling cited supra are distinguishable in present matter due to distinguishable facts. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order
24. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is allowed. Order of learned DCF/DCC is set aside. It is ordered that Insurance company shall refund an amount of Rs.99000/-(Ninety nine thousand) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of consumer complaint till actual payment. It is further ordered that in addition Insurance company shall pay compensation to complainant for mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs.10000/- (Ten thousand). It is further ordered that Insurance company shall pay litigation costs to complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/-(Five thousand). Insurance company shall comply the order within one month after receipt of certified copy of order.
25. Insurance policy dated 28.10.2010 and document Annexure-C6 wherein Sh. Yashpal has written to Insurance company for cancellation of Insurance policy within free look period option shall form part and parcel of order. File of learned DCF/DCC alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of 13 Yashpal Versus G.M. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. F.A. No.256/2017 order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Sunita Sharma Member 24.02.2020 K.D 14