State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Om Parkash vs Aegon on 17 September, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 373 of 2013 Date of Institution : 02.09.2013 Date of Decision : 17.09.2013 Sh. Om Parkash Gagneja S/o Sh. Nand Lal Gagneja, Aged 76 years R/o H.No.417, Sector-37-A, Chandigarh. Appellant V e r s u s 1. Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Managing Director, Unit No.102, 1st Floor, Nomura B Hiranandani, Business Park Pawai Mumbai 400076 India and others. 2. Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Manager, S.C.O. No.2417-18, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh. 3. Jai Laxmi Agency through Agent Sh. Amreswar Nayak, code 10016761 S.C.O No.8, Sector 7. Now shifted to SCO No.841, N.A.C. Manimajra, Chandigarh. ....Respondents Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT. SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by:Sh. N.S. Jagdeva, Advocate for the appellant.
First Appeal No. :
374 of 2013 Date of Institution :
02.09.2013 Date of Decision :
17.09.2013 Sh. Om Parkash Gagneja S/o Sh. Nand Lal Gagneja, Aged 76 years R/o H.No.417, Sector-37-A, Chandigarh.
Appellant V e r s u s
1. Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Managing Director, Unit No.102, 1st Floor, Nomura B Hiranandani, Business Park Pawai Mumbai 400076 India and others.
2. Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Manager, S.C.O. No.2417-18, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.
3. Jai Laxmi Agency through Agent Mr. Amreswar Nayak, code 10016761 S.C.O No.8, Sector 7. Now shifted to SCO No.841, N.A.C. Manimajra, Chandigarh.
....Respondents Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.
SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh.
N.S. Jagdeva, Advocate for the appellant PER DEV RAJ MEMBER Vide this common order, we propose to dispose of two appeals bearing F.A. Nos.373 of 2013 and 374 of 2013 filed by the complainant (now appellant) against the common order dated 23.7.2013 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which it dismissed the following two complaints:-
Sr. No. Complaint No. Title
1. 145 of 2012 Sh. Om Parkash Gagneja Vs. Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and others.
2. 151 of 2012 Sh. Om Parkash Gagneja Vs. Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and others.
2.
Since the facts involved in both the complaints are identical, therefore, the same are culled from Consumer Complaint No.145 of 2012 titled Sh. Om Parkash Gagneja Vs. Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co.
Ltd. and others.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant took various investment-cum-Insurance policies, from various other Companies like ICICI Prudential, Bajaj Allianz, Tata AIG and Kotak Mahindra. The said policies were to mature after a few years. It was stated that in the month of August, 2011, the complainant was approached on telephone by some Officers, namely, Mr. Abhishek Nayyer, Dr. J.P.S Rawat and Mr. Tarlochan Verma on different occasions, and they told him that they were Officers of IRDA and as per IRDA Guidelines, the policies of Senior Citizens could mature before the maturity date. It was further stated that the above-said Officers contacted, on phone, and allured the complainant and assured him that they would get his money invested, in four different Companies, before the maturity date, and he would have to give only one premium of each Policy whereas he would get back his money invested alongwith the bonus in November and December, 2011. The complainant was assured that he would get a sum of Rs.40 lakhs, and the bonus accrued on it. The complainant was approached by the aforesaid Officers through one agent, who received from him a total sum of Rs.5.00 lacs. It was further stated that the complainant was completely misguided and allured by the assurance of the Opposite Parties, and its agents because he was told that he would receive a sum of Rs.40 lakhs approximately and they never disclosed that they were in the process of issuing new policies. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties and its agents, got signatures of the complainant, on various forms, and documents, and on blank papers without disclosing the purpose, and it was told that the same would be filled up, in the office, to save the time of the complainant. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties and their agents did not disclose the contents of the forms/documents, for which purpose the same were being signed and the clauses were not read over to him nor was he made to understand the same. It was further stated that the Policies were sold by fraud and misrepresentation by the Opposite Parties and its agents. The complainant was shocked when he received a new policy number issued by the Opposite Parties worth Rs.50,000/-, which was a 16 years policy, copy of which is Annexure C-2 in both the complaints. It was further stated that the complainant vide his representation to the Opposite Parties on 09.01.2012, prayed them for refund of the money with interest and compensation for harassment. Thereafter the complainant made various representations, as also complaints to the Opposite Parties, but to no effect. It was further stated that the aforesaid 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), directing the Opposite Parties to cancel the Policy in question, refund Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @5% per annum; pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.11,000/- each in both the complaints, as cost of litigation, was filed.
4. Opposite Parties Nos.1 and 2, in their joint written version, stated that the complainant concealed and suppressed the material facts of the case. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties received the proposal form (Annexure-1) from the complainant for issuance of insurance policy in his favour, on the basis of which, they issued a policy bearing No.110913268429 and relevant details whereof had been given in Para 2 of the reply on merits. It was further stated that the Policy was received by the complainant as was evident from Annexure II i.e. copy of acknowledgement receipt. It was further stated that copy of the forwarding letter mentioning the free look option was sent along with the policy bond. It was further stated that the complainant did not get the policy cancelled, during the free look period and, as such, agreed to all the policy terms and conditions mentioned therein. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties provided all the material information, in respect of the proposed cover, to the complainant to enable him to decide on the best cover that would be in his interest and he was made fully aware about the features of the product and he signed the proposal form after evaluating the information and declaration provided in the said proposal form. It was denied that there was any mis-selling of the policy. It was further stated that the complainant made a concocted story as none of the persons, allegedly telephoned him, were impleaded as a party. It was further stated that the complainant himself admitted that he had many policies, therefore, it was not possible that he did not know about the free look period. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5. Opposite Party No.3, in its written version, stated that it was only an insurance broker licensed by IRDA and acted as facilitator for arranging insurance policy for the complainant as per his requirement. It was further stated that on the instructions of the complainant it collected the cheque and forwarded the same to the Insurance Company-Opposite Parties Nos.1 & 2, which on the basis of proposal form, issued Policy to the complainant and there was valid contract between the complainant and the Insurance Company. It was further stated that after the issuance of the insurance policy, the terms and conditions were binding upon the parties. It was further stated that the complainant being the well educated and retired Superintending Engineer could not be kept in dark regarding the terms and conditions. It was further stated that as per Condition No.2.5 of the policy, the insured was at liberty to return the policy along with a letter stating the reasons for disagreement within a period of 15 days, but he did not avail of the free look option. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.3, nor did it indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
6. The parties led evidence in support of their case.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record, the District Forum dismissed both the complaints, filed by the complainant, as mentioned in the opening para of this order.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeals, have been filed, by the appellant/complainant.
9. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case carefully.
10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that both the appeals are liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
11. The grievance of the appellant/complainant in both the appeals, before us, is that he was sold Insurance Policy No.110813219611 dated 29.08.2011 (Annexure C-2) in Complaint No.145 of 2012 and Insurance Policy No.110813219600 dated 27.08.2011 (Annexure C-2) in Complaint No.151 of 2012) by misrepresentation, without disclosing the terms and conditions thereof. The appellant/complainant admittedly had paid premium of Rs.50,000/- for each policy. The appellant/complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.50,000/- each alongwith interest @15% per annum and compensation for mental agony and harassment besides cost of litigation.
12. The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the Opposite Parties sold two Insurance Policies, to the appellant/complainant, by misrepresentation and he was allured by the assurances given by the Opposite Parties. The appellant/complainant is a well educated senior citizen and a retired Superintending Engineer. In both the Policies i.e. 11081321961 & 110813219600, the name of the life assured is Mr. Rahul Gagneja, whose annual income is Rs.5 Lacs. The contention of the appellant/complainant that the respondents/Opposite Parties got his signatures on various forms, documents and blank papers, without disclosing the purpose, is not believable. Even if, for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that he filled in or signed the documents on the assurances, given by the Officers of the respondents/Opposite Parties, he (appellant/complainant) had the opportunity to return the Policies during the free look period. Clause 2.5 relating to Free Look option from the Policy Schedule in respect of Policy Nos.11081321961 and 110813219600, which is identical in both the Policies, is extracted below:-
Policies No.11081321961 & 110813219600:
2.5 Free Look Option In case of disagreement with any of the terms and conditions of the Policy, You may return the Policy alongwith a letter stating the reasons for disagreement within a period fifteen days of receipt of the Policy Document (the Free look period). The Policy will be cancelled and an amount equal to the following will be paid to You:
Sum of the Policy Premium paid;
Less Stamp Duty paid on the Policy;
Less proportionate mortality charges; and Less any expenses borne by the Company for medical examination The Policy and all the rights under the Policy shall stand extinguished immediately on the cancellation of the Policy under the free look period.
13. When the Policies, in question, were received by the appellant/complainant on 15.11.2011, he could exercise the option for returning the same within 15 days of free look period, on receipt of the same but he did not do so. He sent the letter for cancellation of the Policies for the first time on 19.1.2012 i.e. much beyond the free look period. Thus, the Policies could not be cancelled. Therefore, the plea of the appellant/complainant, on this account, being devoid of merit, is not sustainable.
14. The second question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the appellant/complainant was entitled to refund of any amount under the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Treatment of Discontinued Linked Insurance Policies) Regulations 2010 (hereinafter to be referred as IRDA Regulations 2010). No doubt, the IRDA Regulations 2010 came into force w.e.f. 01.07.2010, yet the same are in respect of Unit Linked Policies. Both the Policies, in the instant case, are Non Linked Insurance Policies and, therefore, the provisions of IRDA Regulations 2010, could not be applied in this case.
15. The appellant/complainant has paid only one premium each in respect of both the Policies. Clause 3.5 relates to Surrender Benefit, which is extracted below:-
3.5 Surrender Benefit.
Policy will acquire Surrender Value on payment of the Policy Premium for the first three Policy Years. You can surrender the Policy anytime, however, the surrender value shall be paid after completion of first three Policy Years.
On surrender, the Policy will be converted into Paid-up Policy and the surrender value factor as available in Appendix 1 will be applicable. The minimum Surrender Value is guaranteed and is surrender value factor multiplied by the Paid-Up Sum Assured.
If the Policy is surrendered any time after the first three Policy Years (SV) will be calculated as under..
16. The Policies of the appellant/complainant would have attained surrender value only, had the Policy premiums, for the first three years been paid. As the appellant/complainant paid only one premium each, the Policies, in question, did not acquire any surrender benefit. In the face of facts and evidence, on record, no deficiency in rendering service or indulgence into unfair trade practice, can be attributed to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.
17. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant.
18. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
19. For the reasons recorded above, both the appeal bearing No.373 of 2013 and 374 of 2013, filed by the appellant/complainant, are dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no orders as to costs. The impugned orders, passed by the District Forum, are upheld.
20. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
21. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
17th September, 2013.
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT [DEV RAJ] MEMBER Ad STATE COMMISSION (First Appeal No.373 of 2013) Argued by:Sh. N.S. Jagdeva, Advocate for the appellant.
Dated the 17th day of September 2013.
ORDER Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, this appeal and the connected appeal No.374 of 2013, filed by the appellant/complainant, have been dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no orders as to costs.
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)) PRESIDENT Ad STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. :
374 of 2013 Date of Institution :
02.09.2013 Date of Decision :
17.09.2013 Sh. Om Parkash Gagneja S/o Sh. Nand Lal Gagneja, Aged 76 years R/o H.No.417, Sector-37-A, Chandigarh.
Appellant V e r s u s
1. Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Managing Director, Unit No.102, 1st Floor, Nomura B Hiranandani, Business Park Pawai Mumbai 400076 India and others.
2. Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Manager, S.C.O. No.2417-18, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.
3. Jai Laxmi Agency through Agent Mr. Amreswar Nayak, code 10016761 S.C.O No.8, Sector 7. Now shifted to SCO No.841, N.A.C. Manimajra, Chandigarh.
....Respondents Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.
SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh.
N.S. Jagdeva, Advocate for the appellant PER DEV RAJ MEMBER
1. For orders, see the order passed in First Appeal No.373 of 2013 titled Sh. Om Parkash Gagneja Vs. Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, vide which this appeal has also been dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no orders as to costs.
2. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
Pronounced.
17th September, 2013.
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT [DEV RAJ] MEMBER Ad