National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Surat Singh Yadav vs The Manager, M/S. Kotak Mahindra Old ... on 14 September, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1518 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 09/01/2015 in Appeal No. 714/2014 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. SURAT SINGH YADAV SON OF SHRI NET RAM YADAV R/O H.NO. 1521/5, GALI NO.7, WARD NO.6, PATEL NAGAR GURGAON HARYANA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. THE MANAGER, M/S. KOTAK MAHINDRA OLD MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE LTD. & 2 ORS. JMD REGENT SQUARE BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, OPPOSITE SAHARA MALL, M.G. ROAD GURGAON HARYANA 2. THE MANAGER, M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA OLD MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE LTD., INFINITY PARK, BUILDING NO.21, 5TH FLOOR, ZONE-2, OPPOSITE WESTERN WXPRESS HIGHWAY, GEN. A.K. VAIDYA MARG, MALAD (EAST) MUMBAI - 400022. MAHARASHTRA 3. THEMANAGER, M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA OLD MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE LTD., 9TH FLOOR GODRAJ COLISEUM, BEHIND EVERARD NAGAR, SION (EAST) MUMBAI - 400022. MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Manju Sharma, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent :
Dated : 14 Sep 2015 ORDER
The case of the complainant is that one Mr. Bhupinder Singh, who claims to have been deputed by one Mr. Gaurav of Chandigarh Branch of M/s. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. collected a cheque of ₹30,000/- from him on 17.04.2010. He received a policy dated 14.05.2010 for a sum assured of ₹1,50,000/- and fixed advantage of ₹33,000/- after ten years. He claims to have been received another call from one Mr. K.S. Mehandiratta, who promised to provide him a policy yielding monthly pension of ₹3,460/- with effect from 08.01.2012 for 10 years and a cheque of ₹25,000/- was collected from him. A policy with commencement date 28.12.2010 was received by him in the name of his son. According to the complainant, Mr. K.S. Mahendiratta told him that he had been allotted Pension Registration No.PR 77180 under pension scheme and will be getting pension of ₹3,460/- per month with effect from 08.01.2012 for a period of 10 years. The complainant claims to have received another call from Mr. K.S. Mahendiratta and pursuant thereto, he delivered a cheque of ₹20,000/- to one Mr. Sunny Kapoor with a promise that he will get bonus pack @ ₹12,000/- per quarter for ten years. A policy was issued to him assuring the life of his son-Ravi Yadav. However, when the complainant visited the office of the respondent company he was told that no such pension or bonus scheme was available. He therefore sought cancellation of the policies. The said cancellation was however turned down. According to the complainant, yet another amount of ₹25,127/- was recovered from his account. The policies issued to him however were not cancelled. He therefore approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint seeking refund of amount of ₹1,00,127/- along with interest, compensation etc.
2. The complaint was resisted by the respondent, inter-alia, on the ground that it was barred by limitation. On merits, it was alleged that the complainant, after going through the brochure of different plans, had applied for insurance policies submitting the proposal forms duly signed by him. Copies of the proposal forms submitted by the complainant were annexed to the reply filed by the respondent company. It was further stated that there was a 'Free Look Period' of 15 days during which the policy holder, if he was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, could have withdrawn/returned the said policies. The complainant however did not avail the aforesaid opportunity. It was also pointed out in the reply that the complainant had availed the benefit of the life cover which was available to him under the policy taken by him. It was also claimed that the company had no connection with Mr. K.S. Mehandiratta.
3. The District Forum vide its order dated 10.06.2014 dismissed the complaint holding that there was no deficiency in the service rendered to the complainant.
4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the concerned State Commission. The said appeal having been dismissed by the State Commission, he is before us by way of this revision petition.
5. The whole case of the petitioner is founded on the misrepresentation alleged to have been made to him by one Mr. K.S. Mehandiratta. There is no evidence on record to prove that Mr. K.S. Mehandiratta was an agent of the respondent company. There is no evidence to prove that the alleged agent had been authorized to promise monthly pension to the complainant. The policies issued to the complainant, admittedly did not provide for payment of monthly pension. Therefore, the District Forum and the State Commission have rightly concluded that there was no deficiency on the part of the respondent in rendering services to the complainant.
6. The complainant had an option under the terms and conditions of the policies issued to him, to seek cancellation of the said policies within a period of 15 days. Admittedly, he did not exercise such an option within the prescribed period. Since, the option available under the terms and conditions of policy was not availed by him, he can have no remedy against the insurance company. As far as Mr. K.S. Mehandiratta, I find that he was never impleaded as a party to the complaint. The complainant therefore can have such remedies as are open to him in law against Mr. K.S. Mehandiratta. The dismissal of the complaint filed against the insurance company will not come in the way of his availing such a remedy against Mr. K.S. Mehandiratta.
7. For the reason stated hereinabove, I find no merit in this revision petition. The same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. The Registry is directed to pay fee of the Amicus Curiae as per the approved scale.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER