Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
Norbert Shaba Rego —Petitioner
versus
Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.3930 of 2012
(Against the Order dated 04/06/2012 in Appeal No.579/2012 of the State Commission Karnataka)
Decided on 4.9.2018
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sharan Thakur, Advocate with Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Rakesh K. Rajwania, Advocate with Mr. Prateek Kasliwal, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
When there is no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the lower fora which calls for any interference from this Commission, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21—Revision—The petitioner/complainant had proposed insurance of his life under “Dream Endowment Policy” with the O.P for basic sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/- and enhanced sum assured of Rs.95,00,000/- with annual premium of Rs.1,65,277/- for a period of 20 years—After the complainant had undergone some medical examination by the authorized doctor of opposite party, the opposite party issued a policy bearing No.003921711 dated 26/04/2010 for enhanced sum assured of Rs.50,00,000/- and basic sum assured of Rs.17,73,000/- After receipt of the policy, the complainant noted that policy was issued only for sum assured Rs.67,73,000/- instead of Rs. One Crore—Hence, he requested the O.P No.2 to rectify the same and issue a fresh policy for Rs. One Crore—Though the Opposite Parties had agreed for the same but they have not issued the fresh policy—Hence, complainant got issued a legal notice to opposite parties, but the opposite parties have not issued the fresh policy—Hence, on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ,complaint was filed—O.P resisted the complaint on various grounds—Upon hearing the parties and perusing the documents, the District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint—Appeal preferred by the complainant was also dismissed hence, the present revision—O.P relied on a consent letter dt:10/04/2010 issued by the complainant himself requesting to reduce the sum assured from Rs. 95,00,000/- to Rs. 50,00,000/- and the statutory provision-free look period to cancel the policy if the policy is not accordance with the complainants requirement—No proof filed that the signature on consent letter is forged and no explanation given why he could not raise objection during the free look period—Hence, there was no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the lower fora which calls for any interference from this Commission—Hence, the revision petition No.3930 of 2012 is dismissed—However, if the petitioner/complainant strongly feels that fraud has been played on him by the Insurance Company by forging letter dated 10.4.2010 being the consent letter of the complainant, liberty is granted to the complainant to avail the jurisdiction of civil court for redressal of his grievance as the consumer fora would not be competent to decide the case involving forgery and fraud.
Result: Revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Norbert Shaba Rego against the order dated 04.06.2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Appeal No.579 of 2012.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/complainant had proposed insurance of his life under “Dream Endowment Policy” with the OP for basic sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/- and enhanced sum assured of Rs.95,00,000/- with annual premium of Rs.1,65,277/- for a period of 20 years. After the complainant had undergone some medical examination by the authorized doctor of opposite party, the opposite party issued a policy bearing No.003921711 dated 26/04/2010 for enhanced sum assured of Rs.50,00,000/- and basic sum assured of Rs.17,73,000/-. After receipt of the policy, the complainant noted that policy was issued only for sum assured Rs.67,73,000/- instead of Rs.One Crore. Hence, he requested the opposite party No.2 to rectify the same and issue a fresh policy for Rs.One Crore. It is alleged that the Opposite Parties had agreed for the same but they have not issued the fresh policy. Thereafter, complainant got issued a legal notice to opposite parties. But the opposite parties have not complied. Hence, he felt deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and filed the complaint. On appearance opposite party filed the version contending that complainant had submitted an application dated 04/02/2010 for insurance in his name under the “Dream Endowment Plan” for a sum assured as Rs.5,00,000/- and enhanced sum assured for Rs.95,00,000/- with annual premium of Rs.1,65,227/- for a period of 20 years. But on 10/04/2010, complainant himself sent a consent letter for reduction of enhanced sum assured from Rs.95,00,000/- to Rs.50,00,000. As per offer given by the complainant, the opposite parties have revised the sum assured and issued a policy bearing No.003921711 dated 26/04/2010 with option of free look period of fifteen days through its welcome letter attached to the policy bond. It was further contended by the Opposite parties that after receipt of the policy bond, complainant had not objected within the free look period of fifteen days and did not return the bond. Since the complainant does not want to continue with the said policy, the respondent would be ready to give surrender value of the policy as per terms and conditions. Hence, there is no deficiency on their part and requested for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mangalore, (in short ‘the District Forum’) vide its order dated 24.01.2012 dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred an appeal being No.579 of 2012 before the State Commission, which was also dismissed vide its order dated 04.06.2012.
4. Hence the present revision petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant stated that the complaint of the petitioner/complainant has been dismissed mainly on two counts. First relates to an alleged letter dated 10.04.2010, wherein it has been alleged that the complainant has given consent for reducing enhanced sum assured from Rs.95,00,000/- to Rs.50,00,000/-. The second point on which the complaint has been dismissed is regarding free look period of 15 days within which, the complainant should have objected about the policy. The learned counsel stated that the complainant has been asserting that the alleged consent letter dated 10.4.2010 has not been written by the complainant. As there is a mark of cross (x) on the left side of the signature, this means that somebody has drafted the letter and sent to the signatory to put his signature at the place of (x). Clearly this could not have been done by the complainant. The original proposal form was filed for Rs.5,00,000/- as basic sum assured and Rs.95,00,000/- as enhanced sum assured. The policy receiv
