State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri. Santosh Shashikant Marathe, vs Customer Service Officer, on 13 January, 2014
BEFORE THE GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PANAJI GOA FA. No. 87/2013 Shri. Santosh Shashikant Marathe, Address:- Matoshri H. No 341, Vishwambhar Nagar, Opp. Syndicate Bank, Ponda-Margao Rd, Dhavli, Ponda, Goa 403 401. Mob-9823646130. Appellant v/s. Customer Service Officer, Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited G. Corp Tech Park, 5th & 6th Floor, KasarWadavali, Ghodbunder Road, Thane 400601. Tel: (022) 239961435. Reg. Office At Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited One Indiabulls Centre, Tower 1, 16th Floor, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, SenapatiBapatMarg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai 400013. Tel: 4356900. Respondents Appellant/Complainant is represented by his father an authorized agent. Respondents/OPs are represented by Adv. Shri. R. Gauthankar. Coram: Shri Justice N.A. Britto, President Shri Jagdish Prabhudesai, Member Dated: 13/01/2014 ORDER
[Per Shri Justice N.A. Britto, President] Consumer complaint filed by the complainant on 08/08/13 has been dismissed by the Lr. North Goa District Forum by order dated 26/08/13 at the stage of admission; and hence this appeal.
2. We have heard the authorized agent of the complainant as well as Lr. Adv. Shri. R. Gauthankar on behalf of the Respondents/OPs.
3. We propose to decide the complaint ourselves rather than remanding the complaint for a decision by the Lr. District Forum. This will not cause any inconvenience to both the parties and will save them from further expenses.
4. The facts are hardly in dispute.
5. The complainant obtained from the OP Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., - a Life Insurance policy and paid the first installment of Rs. 19,400/- on 10/05/12.
The policy had what is known as a free look period of 15 days which would have enabled the complainant to return the policy document in case the complainant was not satisfied with the same.
6. The complainant did not receive the policy document from the OP for over a month and as such the complainant began making inquiries with the local office of the OP as well as their Panaji office. The complainant was informed that the policy document was dispatched to the complainant through Blue Dart Courier Service on 23/05/13. After prolonged correspondence with the customer service centre of the OP as well as the said Blue Dart Courier Service, eventually it transpired that the policy document which was dispatched by the OP through the said Blue Dart Courier Service on 23/05/13 was delivered on 25/05/12 but to someone else, and not to the complainant. This the complainant came to know by tracking the website of the said Courier Service.
7. The complainant lodged a complaint on 13/7/12 on the website of the said Blue Dart Courier Service and later it was confirmed that Blue Dart Courier Service had delivered the policy document at the wrong address and not to any person but had lost the document and inspite of that the OP stated that they could not do anything about the policy document and insisted that it was delivered to the complainant inspite of being informed that Blue Dart had lost the document. The complainant lodged an online complaint on the website of the OP on 10/09/12 and as there was no response the complainant on 5/10/12 sent an email to IRDA who also took no cognizance of the complaint. Inspite of the said complaints, on 5/11/12 the complainant received a letter from the OP stating that though they were concerned about the non receipt of the policy, the complainant should have opted for amendments during the free look period of 15 days. The complainant was informed that in case the complainant wanted a duplicate policy, to submit documents such as indemnity bond on Rs. 200/- stamp paper dully filled, signed and notarized, valid photo ID proof attested by self, and valid address proof attested by self.
8. The complainant contended that the officials of the OP were careless and irresponsible and instead of questioning of the officials of Blue Dart Courier Service for non delivery of the policy document, they were repeatedly questioning the complainant as if the complainant was responsible for non receipt of the said policy document. The complainant then filed the complaint for refund of Rs. 19,400/- with interest at the rate of 24% from May 2012; for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and costs of Rs. 5000/-.
9. Admittedly, the complainant did not receive the policy document. The policy document was lost by Blue Dart Courier Service, to whom it was entrusted by the OP to be delivered to the complainant. During the course of the hearing of this appeal we asked Lr. Adv. Shri. Gauthankar on 10/12/13, whether the OP had taken any action against Blue Dart Courier Service for not delivering the policy document to the complainant and inspite of seeking an adjournment on 20/05/13, Lr. Adv. Shri. Gauthankar reported that he had received no instructions in that regard. At the same time on 6/1/14 Lr.
Adv. Shri. Gauthankar made a statement before this Commission that the OP had sent to him the policy document to be handed over to the complainant. However, the complainant flatly refused to accept the same, stating that at this stage the complainant was not ready to accept the said policy document.
10. Be that as it may, Shri. Gauthankar, the Lr. advocate on behalf of the OP would submit that there was no substance in the complaint of the complainant as IRDA took no action against the OP.
11. On the other hand, the authorized representative of the complainant, submitted that the complainant did not receive the policy document which according to the OP was sent by the OP through Blue Dart and after contacting Blue Dart the complainant came to know that the said policy document was delivered by them at a wrong address and inspite of the OP being informed about the same the OP insisted for the production of documents, referred to hereinabove, in order to issue a duplicate of the policy. The authorized representative of the complainant would submit that at this stage the complainant is only interested in refund of the money paid by him.
12. The Lr. District Forum has concluded that there is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of the OP since they had dispatched the policy document through the said Blue Dart Courier Service. We are unable to accept this reasoning of the Lr. District Forum. As per the agreement between the complainant and the OP the complainant was entitled to have the policy document. If at all the OP chose Blue Dart to send the same to the complainant and Blue Dart lost the same, the complainant could not be made accountable for non delivery of the said policy document. It is the OP who had chosen the said courier service and Blue Dart can be considered as the agent of the OP. It is Blue Dart who were deficient in providing the necessary service to the OP and the OP ought to have taken some action against the said courier company and once it was brought to the notice of the OP by the complainant that the policy document was delivered by the said Courier Company at a wrong place then the OP, on their own, should have provided the complainant with the duplicate copy of the policy without insisting for production of any of the documents referred to in letter dated 5/11/12. Thus there was clear deficiency in service on the part of the OP in not ensuring that the complainant received the policy document and the same having been lost by Blue Dart, in not giving a duplicate of the same without any condition.
13. The Lr. District Forum has also concluded that in case the complainant did not receive the policy document the complainant ought to have filed a complaint against the said Blue Dart Courier Company for deficiency in service. Here again we are unable to agree with the said reasoning of the Lr. District Forum. There was no contract of service between the complainant and the said Blue Dart Courier Company. If at all there was a contract of service it was between the OP and the said Blue Dart Courier Company. The Lr. District has also observed that the complainant did not make the Blue Dart Courier Company a party to the complaint and as such they were of the opinion that no case for deficiency was made out against the OP. In our view, this reasoning also cannot be accepted as the complainant had no concern with the said courier service which was chosen by the OP to deliver the policy document to the complainant.
14. In our view, on failure on the part of the OP to deliver the policy document within a reasonable time and thereafter on failure of the OP to issue a duplicate of the policy, inspite of the OP having been informed that the policy document was lost by Blue Dart Courier Service, through whom it was sent, there was clear deficiency in service on the part of the OP and as such the complainant was certainly entitled to repudiate the contract and demand refund of the money paid by the complainant.
15. We, therefore, allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned order. We allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay to the complainant the sum of Rs. 19,400/- with pending and future interest at the rate of 9% from 10/05/12 until payment. The complainant is also held entitled to compensation for expenses incurred, hardship, disappointment, mental stress, etc. in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- besides costs of the complaint as well as of this appeal which are assessed at Rs. 10,000/-. The sums herein ordered to be paid shall be paid to the complainant within a period of 30 days and in case they are not paid, they shall carry interest at 9% until they are paid.
[Shri. Jagdish Prabhudesai] [Shri Justice N.A. Britto] MEMBER PRESIDENT