AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 16.03.2016 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (''the State Commission'') in First Appeal no. 137 of 2015.
The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner had taken a policy bearing no. 4000426072 called IDBI Federal Insurance Endowment and Money Back Plan during the year June 2012 on payment of Rs.5.00 lakh. The petitioner had opted to purchase insurance policy in the name of his grandson named "Prashant Gupta" whereas the respondent/ Opposite party / insurance company issued the said policy in the name of petitioner''s granddaughter. The petitioner immediately informed the representative of the respondent insurance company about the mistake done by the respondent, but the respondent remained silent and evaded the request of the petitioner continuously. The said documents in respects of grand daughter''s name had never been signed by the petitioner. The petitioner sent a letter to the respondent insurance company for cancellation of the policy during July 2012. The respondent cancelled the policy and remitted Rs.5.00 lakhs to the petitioner''s account on 13.02.2013 but not paid the interest for using money for years. Thus a consumer complaint was filed. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum VI (District New Delhi) vide its order dated 13.01.2015 while disposing of the complaint observed as under:
"The opposite party filed reply and also filed an application for settlement on 15.07.2014 to pay 9% interest from the date of refund, i.e., 15.02.2013 interest plus Rs.15,000/- as litigation and deficiency but the opposite party failed to respond.
In the light of the settlement application moved by the OP, we allow the application and direct the OP to pay interest @ 9% from 15.02.2013 till payment on the amount of Rs.5.00 lakh already paid."
Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the respondent/ opposite party filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 16.03.2016 while accepting the appeal gave the following observations:
"2. OP filed an application for settlement on 15.07.2014 and offered to pay interest @ 9% up to the date of refund. On the basis of said application, the District Forum directed OP to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of refund, i.e., 15.02.2013.
We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. At the very outset, it is mentioned that we are not clear from where the District Forum has picked up the date as 15.02.2013 from which date interest is to be paid. It appears that District Forum wanted to convey that it has picked up the same from the application for settlement moved by the OP. Similarly, the impugned order shows that application of OP purported to pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation charges. That is again missing in application for settlement copy of which is placed at page 114 of the appeal.
Again it does not make any sense that interest has to be paid from 15.02.2013. Premium was paid on 30.05.2012, complainant sought cancellation on 30.07.2012 and OP refunded the amount on 15.02.2013. Again it does not make any sense that interest was to be paid till amount of Rs.5.00 lakh already paid, if the amount has already been paid, there was no question of paying interest after payment.
The contention of the counsel for appellant that neither evidence was taken nor arguments were heard is being mentioned for being rejected only. When OP has moved an application for settlement, there remained no need of evidence and arguments.
The counsel for complainant submitted that complainant is an old citizen of 90 years of age and was harassed by OP from July 2012 to 2013 when complaint was filed. We are at a loss to appreciate the plea. OP had already refunded the amount on 15.12.2013. Now, the complainant is pursuing with the case just to extract money in the shape of compensation.
What appears to be just is directing OP to pay interest from 30.07.2012 to 15.12.2013 @ 9% per annum on Rs.5.00 lakh which was the premium paid by the complainant?
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is modified to the effect that appellant shall pay interest to the respondent on Rs.5.00 lakh @ 9% per annum from 30.07.2012 to 15.12.2013. The order shall be complied within 30 days filing which OP will be liable to face coercive action under section 25/27 Consumer Protection Act."
Thereafter the date was corrected vide order dated 13.05.2010 from 15.12.2013 to 15.02.2013.
Hence, the present revision petition.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who was present along with the petitioner in person. He contended that the respondent had fraudulently issued the policy in the name of his grand-daughter and illegally used the premium of Rs.5.00 lakh. However, later they refunded the policy premium of Rs.5.00 lakh after eight months and twelve days on 15.02.2013. He had asked for interest @ 9% on Rs.5.00 lakh for the intervening period but the respondent ignored the request. The amount of Rs.5.00 lakh was refunded on 15.02.2013 without any interest. As per the State Commission''s order he has been awarded 9% interest from 30.07.2012 to 15.02.2013 the date on which Rs.5.00 lakh was refunded to him instead of from 30.05.2012 the date on which he paid the premium.
I have gone through the proposal form placed on record. It is clear from the proposal form that the name of Prashant Gupta has been struck off and the name of Anisha Gupta has been added and Mr R K Gupta has signed the form to verify the correction. The plea of the counsel that the correction was made at the instance of the respondent is belied by the fact that even against column no. 4 for educational qualifications it has been shown as 10 th Pass. Prashant was a five year old and could not be 10 th pass. The proposal form was dated 30.05.2012 and the signature at the end of the proposal form was matching as against the signature against the corrections made at page 1 of the proposal form. The policy was issued on 29.06.2012. As per the facts on record, the petitioner had received the policy no. 4000426072 on 05.07.2012 and the fifteen days free look period lapsed on 27.07.2012. However, it was only vide letter dated 30.07.2012 received by the Company on 03.08.2012, that the petitioner for the first time raised the objection with regard to the name.
The respondents vide their letter dated 24.08.2012 had sent a letter to Ms Anisha Gupta stating as under:
"To
Ms Anisha Gupta
385 Narmada Apartment
Alaknanda
Delhi - 110 019
Subject : Complaint with respect to policy number 4000426072 bearing IRDA Token number 08-12-009704.
Dear Customer,
This is with reference to your complaint addressed to IDBI Federal Life Insurance Co. Ltd., on the captioned policy.
We would like to inform you that your policy is issued on the 29.06.2012 and was dispatched through Bluedart on the 04.07.2012 and the POD number is 43911786601. The same was received by you on 05.07.2012.
As per policy terms and conditions, you have option to cancel the policy within the free look period which is within 15 days from the date of receipt of policy bond. Since you have not opted for the same in free look period, your request cannot be processed now.
We request you to continue with your policy and enjoy the full benefits of your IDBI Federal Incomesurance Endowment and Money back Plan.
In case of any queries please feel free to email us: support@idbifederal.com or contact our Custome Service team on 1800 102 5005 (non MTNL, Toll Free) and 1800 22 1120 (MTNL Toll Free)
We assure you of our best services at all times
Warm regards,
Elizabeth Taylor
Manager - IGMS & Complaints"
It would appear that the request for cancellation and refund of the premium paid was sent after the free look period, as such the policy could not be cancelled as per the IRDA regulations and also as per the terms of the policy contract. However, as a special case, the respondent/ insurance company agreed to refund the amount with interest @ 9% on the amount of Rs.5.00 lakh from 30.07.2012, the date on which the complaint was first lodged till 15.02.2013 the date of refund of the amount.
In view of the discussion above, I find no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of powers under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.