State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sri Bhagwan on 23 February, 2017
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 23.02.2017 First Appeal No.584/2014 (Arising out of the order dated 21.07.2011 passed in Complaint Case No.186/2008 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum-V, New Delhi) In the matter of: M/s. Reliance Life Insurance Co. Limited, F-14/41, 1st Floor, Model Town - II, New Delhi 110009. ....Appellant Versus Sri Bhagwan, S/o Shri Suraj Bhan, B-17/1, Vijay Vihar, Phase-2, Sector -4, Rohini, Delhi -110085 ....Respondent CORAM Justice Veena Birbal, President. Ms. Salma Noor, Member
Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
To be referred to the reporter or not?
Justice Veena Birbal, President By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 21.07.2011 by which CC No.186/2008 filed by the respondent/complainant has been allowed and the appellant/OP has been directed as under:
OPs are accordingly hereby directed to change the policy plan of the second policy subscribed by the complainant which had been issued under Reliance Money Guarantee Plan issued under contact No.11083206 to the plan for which the first policy was taken by the complainant i.e. to Automatic Investment Plan from the date of its inception/operation. The OPs are further directed to restore the policy issued under Reliance Money Guarantee Plan after converting the same to Automatic Investment Plan, if lapsed due to non payment of further premiums of Rs.15001/- for balance two years, after taking the premium due for two years which were required to be deposited for three years only under Automatic Investment Plan. These two years premium are to be accepted by the OPs without any interest till date. No orders as to cost and compensation. The above orders are joint as well as several against all the OPs.
Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of present appeal are that a complaint under Section 12 of the Act was filed by the respondent/complainant before the Ld. District Forum alleging therein that the officials of appellant/OP i.e. OP No.2 and OP No.3 before the Ld. District Forum had approached the respondent/complainant and convinced him to buy a policy of the appellant/OP. The respondent/complainant agreed to subscribe to the policy under Automatic Investment Plan and issued a cheque of Rs.15001/- drawn on IDBI Bank in favour of the appellant/OP. It was alleged that Ms. Bhawna Chaudhary OP No.2 had collected the cheque from his residence. The said official explained to the respondent/complainant that he had to pay Rs.15,000/- per year for three years continuously and he will be insured for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and there will be a lock-in period of 36 months and there can be partial and full withdrawal after 36 months. The aforesaid officials also told him that he can stop paying the premium after three years in case he wishes to withdraw the full amount after three year he would be paid Rs.84,887.70.
It was alleged that in the month of September 2007, Ms. Bhawan Chaudhary and Abhishek Vashishthaa OP No.2 and OP No.4 (before Ld. District Forum) enticed the respondent/complainant to take one more policy of the same amount and suggested that in the second policy he can be the policy holder whereas somebody else can be insured and in this manner he can get the tax benefits of both the policies. On getting allured he subscribed for the 2nd policy and paid premium of Rs.15,000/- for the second policy which was received by the appellant/OP. Thereupon, he was astonished to see that the policy schedule was given under the 'Reliance Money Guarantee Plan' and not under the 'Automatic Investment Plan'. The features of both the plans were different than what was informed to him. Thereupon, he contacted the officials of appellant/OP several times for rectification of the policy as he wanted the policy to have the same terms and conditions as were that of 'Automatic Investment Plan', but needful was not done. Finding inaction on the part of the appellant/OP, he filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to the appellant/OP to provide the benefits of 2nd insurance policy as assured to him by their representatives as per terms of Automatic Investment Plan and also sought compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
Notice of the complaint was sent to the appellant/OP. A counsel appeared for the appellant/OP and filed vakalatnama. On a subsequent date, complaint was dismissed for non-appearance. It was alleged that thereupon respondent/complainant moved an application for restoration of the complaint case and notice was issued to the appellant/OP by registered post and the same was also given 'dasti'. However, no one appeared for the appellant/OP and as such appellant/OP was proceeded ex-parte. The respondent/complainant filed ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit stating the averments made in the complaint on oath. Since the appellant/OP was ex-parte before the District Forum and there was no defence version/evidence of the appellant/OP, Ld. District Forum allowed the compliant by passing the ex-parte order and gave directions to the appellant/OP as has been stated above.
Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed.
Ld. counsel for appellant/OP submits that the appellant/OP is unable to comply with the impugned order as the Automatic Investment Plan does not exist as the same was abolished in the year 2011. It is submitted that the appellant/OP had filed the objection of the execution proceedings before the Ld. District Forum and brought the aforesaid fact to the knowledge of the Ld. District Forum. It is submitted that appellant/OP had offered to the respondent/complainant to take/choose different existing policy of same value or to take the premium paid by him back but the respondent/complainant remained adamant and was not ready to understand the actual position.
Respondent/complainant submits that he is 65 years of age and is a heart patient. It is stated that present complaint was filed in the year 2008 and nine years have already passed. It is submitted that he has been fighting with the appellant/OP for a small issue. He states that if the scheme is not in existence as has been contended in that event the amount deposited by him be refunded to him with reasonable interest.
Considering that the appellant/OP was ex-parte before the Ld. District Forum and also considering that a very small amount is involved and as per the stand of the appellant/OP the policy i.e. 'Automatic Investment Plan' is no more in existence and had been closed long back, we direct the appellant/OP to refund the investment amount of second policy received from the respondent/complainant alongwith 9% interest from the date of deposit i.e. 03.11.2007 till payment.
The impugned order stands modified as directed above.
Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties and be also sent to the Ld. District Forum, for information.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Justice Veena Birbal) President (Salma Noor) Member