National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Shrikant Murlidhar Apte vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 2 May, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 634 of 2012 (From the order dated 19.05.2011 in Appeal No. A/10/1166 of Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai) Shrikant Murlidhar Apte Block No.2, Niwara CHSL, Pandurang Wadi Road No.1, Goregaon East, Mumbai 400 063 (Maharashtra) Petitioner/Complainant Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India Divisional Manager In-Charge, DO-III Divisional Office 3rd Floor, New India Building, Santacruz West, Mumbai 400 054 (Maharashtra) Through The Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Western Zonal Office, 2nd floor, Yogakshema, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (Maharashtra) Respondent/Opp. Party (OP) BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : In person For the Respondent : Mr. Rajat Bhalla, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 2nd May, 2013 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant against the impugned order dated 19.5.2011 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. A/10/1166 The Div. Manager, LIC Vs. Mr. Shrikant Murlidhar Apte by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner wanted to purchase 11 policies each of Rs.1,00,000/- from OP/respondent. Complainant deposited Rs.5,000/- with OP Agent Mr. Divakar Patkar on 11.11.2005. The complainant was examined by authorized Medical Officer on 30.11.2005. Complainant further paid Rs.10,432/- to the aforesaid insurance agent by cheque. Complainant received 11 polices on 11.1.2006. On perusal, it was revealed that 7 polices out of issued 11 polices were showing excess monthly premium than what was quoted by aforesaid agent. Complainant sent letter to OP for rectification of premium, but OP apprised that premium amount shown in the policy document was correct and quotation given by agent was incorrect. The complainant moved Insurance Ombudsman who turned down the request. Complainant alleging deficiency on the part of OP, filed complaint before District Forum. OP/respondent contested complaint and submitted that premium was to be charged according to the OP polices and quotation of monthly premium made by agent was not final and binding on OP. It was further alleged that complainant had option to return Insurance Policy during cooling off period, if he was not satisfied with the policies and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to refund Rs.756/-, excess amount charged on the policies and further to pay Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by the OP was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard petitioner in person and learned Counsel for the respondent at admission stage.
4. Petitioner vehemently submitted that respondent cannot charge excess premium from the quotation given by agent of respondent and learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint and learned State Commission has committed error in passing impugned order; hence, revision petition be allowed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
5. Perusal of record reveals that as per petitioners letter dated January 25, 2006, respondent was charging Rs.45/- per month as excess premium, total in all on seven policies than shown by agent Divakar Patkar. Perusal of statement dated 11.11.2005 given by Divakar Patkar shows that this quotation has not been issued by OP/respondent. In such circumstances, if less premium has been shown by Mr. Patkar (family investment consultant), it cannot be binding on OP. To our utter surprise, Mr. Patkar has not been impleaded as a party by the petitioner in the complaint and on account of non-joinder of necessary party, complaint is liable to be dismissed because only Mr. Patkar could have revealed whether he gave the statement to the petitioner, which does not bear signatures of Mr. Patkar and if so given, under what circumstances it was given.
6. Learned State Commission while dealing at length rightly observed as under:
The Insurance Agent is a Facilitator between the Insurance Co. and the prospective policy purchaser. He is an agent of consumer as well as Insurance Co. He is not exclusive agent of Insurance Co. Moreover, he cannot bind the Insurance Co. if he gives quotation of any policy at lesser monthly or yearly premium than prescribed by the underwriting Insurance Co. So in the instant case, even if there was a difference between the quotation of monthly or yearly premium in respect of 7 policies out of 11 policies purchased by the respondent from LIC through Mr. Divakar Patkar, Insurance Agent, that does not mean that LIC is bound to issue policies to the respondent at the rate quoted by the Insurance Agent quoting wrong rates of premium on the part of the Insurance Agent. Under such circumstances, there is no jurisdiction to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to pass an order of rectification and to direct LIC herein appellant to charge the premium in respect of the 7 policies directly in accordance with the estimation of premium given by Mr. Divakar Patkar, Insurance Agent which was lesser than LIC had fixed premium for certain policies. The agent cannot bind LIC in this way. We have already mentioned above that LIC Agent is a Facilitator, he acts independently to help the consumer to procure Insurance policies and he helps LIC to promote business and gets commission but his agency does not in any way bind LIC if he misquotes rates of premium in respect of few policies. Exactly this has happened in the instant case. Mr. Divakar Patkar had given quotation of certain amount to the respondent when respondent was going to catch 8.30 a.m. train in the morning. He hurriedly gave cheque to the agent and when he received policies, he found that out of 11 policies for 7 policies premium charged by LIC was higher than quoted by the Insurance Agent. If this was the main grievance of the Complainant, respondent herein, he had 15 days cooling off period from the date of receipt of all policies. He could have returned 7 policies with a request to cancel the policies and to refund the premium since premium quoted in the policies were not in accordance with the premium quoted by the Insurance Agent to him. There was 15 days cooling off period and during this period respondent Shri Shrikant Apte could have cancelled those policies since not agreeable to him on account of higher premium mentioned in the policy than quoted by the Insurance Agent and should have been refunded back his premium amounts paid on those 7 policies. This is permissible under IRDA Regulation. Shri Apte did not avail of the said facility available but continued to enjoy the policy and took up issue with the LIC authorities and also with the Insurance Ombudsman .Both of them rightly turned down his request. In our view, in the circumstances, LIC cannot be blamed for issuing 11 policies with monthly or yearly premium mentioned therein because once 15 days cooling off period is over, the policy documents become binding on both the parties and contents therein are also binding on both of them.
7. We concur with the finding arrived at by the learned State Commission and we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage.
8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.
..Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-
( DR. B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER k