State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kotak Mohindra Old Mutual Life ... vs Mengha Singh on 23 April, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1179 of 2012
Date of institution : 06.09.2012
Date of decision : 23.04.2014
1. Kotak Mohindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited, SCO 35,
2nd Floor, District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar.
2. Kotak Mohindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited, Central
Processing Centre, 8th Floor, Godrej Coliseum, behind Everard
Nagar, Sion East Mumbai-400 022.
Both 1 & 2 through their authorized signatory.
.......Appellants- Opposite Parties
Versus
Mengha Singh son of Shri Genda Singh, resident of Village
Dherowal, Post Office Mari Panuwan, Tehsil Batala, District
Gurdaspur.
......Respondent- Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
9.5.2012 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur.
Quorum :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Mr. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Dr. Puneet Sekhon, Advocate. For the respondent : None.
JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/opposite parties against the order dated 9.5.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (in short, "District First Appeal No.1179 of 2012. 2 Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, Mengha Singh, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was partly allowed and the opposite parties were directed to act as per the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Treatment of Discontinued Linked Insurance Policies) Regulations, 2010 (in short, "the Regulations") and to pay the refund value, along with interest and other accrued benefits after the completion of the locking period and to pay Rs.10,000/-, as compensation, within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order.
2. The complainant alleged in his complaint that he took single premium one time policy from opposite party No.2. When he received the policy at his home address and had gone through the terms and conditions thereof, it transpired that the opposite parties had issued a wrong policy against his proposal by filling wrong proposal. He had never given his consent regarding the policy under which the yearly premiums were payable. It transpired from the policy that in respect of the same the premium was payable yearly for a period of 20 years. He submitted his representation to opposite party No.1 and in reply thereto it was mentioned that he could have got cancelled the policy during the free look period of 15 days. In fact, his signatures were obtained on the proposal form without reading and explaining the contents thereof and he never knew the guidelines mentioned in the policy as he was not in a position to read English language. The opposite parties were negligent and deficient in service. He prayed for the issuance of direction to the opposite First Appeal No.1179 of 2012. 3 parties for the refund of Rs.60,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The opposite parties contested the complaint and filed joint written reply before the District Forum. They admitted that the policy was sent to the complainant at his address and was received by him. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, they pleaded that the complainant had submitted proposal form on 23.8.2010 for purchasing for himself the policy known as "Kotak Super Advantage" for the sum assured of Rs.3,00,000/- for a period of 20 years, in respect of which the premium of Rs.60,000/- was paid by means of cheque as per chosen frequency of premium payment on yearly basis. All the details about his family etc. were given by the complainant in the proposal form. It was on the basis of that proposal submitted by the complainant that the policy was issued to him and offer was made to him to return the policy within 15 days of the free look period, if the same was not acceptable to him and in that case whole of the premium paid by him was to be refunded. He failed to exercise that option during that period and thereafter was bound by the terms and conditions of the policy. In fact, the complainant had chosen to continue with the policy and is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing this complaint and has no locus-standi to file the same. The representation made by the complainant was duly replied. There was no negligence or deficiency in service on their part. The complainant is an ex- serviceman and was re-employed on Government clerical job and he was able to read, write and understand English language. First Appeal No.1179 of 2012. 4
3. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf partly allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as no one appeared on behalf of the respondent-complainant. We have also carefully gone through the records of the case.
5. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the District Forum committed an error by passing the impugned order on the basis of the Regulations. Those Regulations were not applicable as the insurance policy in question was never cleared by the I.R.D.A. after coming into force of those Regulations. That policy continued to be governed by the old Regulations and as per those Regulations and terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the complainant was not entitled to any such refund value having failed to pay the premiums for a continuous period of three years. In these circumstances the order passed by the District Forum cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
6. The only question arises for determination, for the decision of the present appeal is, whether the Regulations were applicable to the policy in question or not? These Regulations in the form of notification were published in the Central Government gazette on 1.7.2010. As per the short title and commencement thereof, the same were to come into force on the date of their publication in the official gazette and were to apply to all the products of the Linked Life Insurance cleared by the I.R.D.A. thereafter. The proposal form First Appeal No.1179 of 2012. 5 alleged to have been submitted by the complainant was proved as Ex.R-1 and the policy itself was proved as Ex.R-3. The proposal form was submitted on 23.8.2010 and the insurance policy was issued on 27.8.2010, as is clear from the letter Ex.R-4. By that date, the Regulations had been made applicable.
7. Now, the question arises, whether this policy was cleared by the I.R.D.A. or not? Learned counsel for the opposite parties came up with the plea that the same had not been cleared and in support of his contentions he had drawn our attention towards the document Annexure A-6, which forms part of grounds of appeal. According to her, this document contains the names of those insurance products, which were cleared by the I.R.D.A. and that on the date of issuance thereof the policy in question had not been cleared.
8. It cannot be made out from this document that the same contains the insurance products, which were cleared by the I.R.D.A. The "Kotak Super Advantage", which is the insurance product in the present case is said to have been withdrawn on 31.8.2010. It can safely be made out that the opposite parties could not have offered this insurance product for sale without the same having been cleared by the I.R.D.A. The same was issued after the issuance of the Regulations. It was correctly concluded by the District Forum that these Regulations were applicable to these insurance products. We do not find any ground for upsetting that finding. We do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
9. The appellants deposited the sum of Rs.5,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal on 6.9.2012. They deposited another sum of First Appeal No.1179 of 2012. 6 Rs.63,200/- on 23.10.2012 in compliance with the order dated 17.9.2012. Both these sums along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the District Forum and the appellants.
10. The arguments in this case were heard on 17.4.2014 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER April 23 , 2014. (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM) Bansal MEMBER