PRABH DAYAL WADHWA Vs. AEGON RELIGARE LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 26.11.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it disposed of the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant) in the following manner:

(2.) IT was further stated that the complainant, in response to the reply from the opposite parties received on 10.4.2010, which was not satisfactory, again on 21.4.2010 requested them to take remedial measures, against their office/staff and send the original of Page 23 to enable him to take suitable legal recourse (Annexure C -6). It was further stated that the opposite parties sent reply dated 24.4.2010, just to delay the matter. It was further stated that a detailed complaint was also sent, by the complainant, to the opposite parties, under his full signatures on 5.6.2010 (Annexure C -8) along with the brochure, but no action was taken by them. It was further stated that in spite of refunding the money, the opposite parties used to send their staff to the complainant, which assured to pay back the same after three complete years, with full benefit and bonus of every year. It was further stated that the complainant paid premiums for subsequent two years also through cheques (Annexures C -9 and C -10 respectively), subject to e -mails dated 9.4.2010 and 5.6.2010. It was further stated that no action was taken by the opposite parties, which was a clear -cut deficiency of service. It was further stated that finally, the complainant sent a registered notice dated 21.3.2013 (Annexure C -11) to the Head Office of the opposite parties, with a copy to its Branch Office, at Sector 22, Chandigarh. It was further stated that the opposite parties replied vide letter dated 19.4.2013 (Annexure C -12), received by the complainant on 26.4.2013, which was not at all satisfactory.

(3.) THE opposite parties, in their written version, stated that the complainant did not disclose any deficiency in service or irresponsible act, on the part of the opposite parties, which was clearly evident from the documents forming part of the Policy Contract, entered into between him and the opposite parties. It was further stated that the complaint was an abuse of the process of law and was filed just to harass the opposite parties. It was further stated that the Policy was issued, strictly in accordance with the proposal form filled by the complainant and the same (Policy) was governed by the terms and conditions stated in the same. It was further stated that on receipt of the complaint, from the complainant, he was informed that if he wanted to cancel the Policy, he was required to submit certain documents, for the said purpose, but he failed to submit the same. It was further stated that in the meantime, the opposite parties investigated the matter and informed the complainant vide letter dated 24.6.2010, that the Policy would be governed by the terms and conditions of the same and no other assertions or promises made by anyone would be applicable. It was further stated that, thereafter, the complainant did not respond and paid two more annual premiums (Annexures R -4 and R -5), which impliedly consented to the continuation of the Policy, and waiving off his right of getting the Policy cancelled. It was further stated that the complainant is now not interested in continuing the Policy and is resorting to unfair means to wriggle out of his contractual obligations and to extract money from the opposite parties. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the opposite parties, nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.