West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/346/2014

SRI PARITOSH SENGUPTA, S/O. Late Narendranath Sengupta. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

31 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24-PARGANAS, ALIPORE, KOLKATA – 700 027

                                                       C.C. Case No._346_____OF_____2014________

Date of Filing : 4.8.2014                                                                 Date of Passing Judgement: _13.4.2015

Present                                :               President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

                                                Member(s)    :   Dr.(Mrs.) Shibani Chakraborty

Complainant                                      : Sri Paritosh Sengupta, s/o late Narendranath Sengupta of 89, Janata Road, P.S. Survey Park, Kolkata – 75.

                                                                                                                -Versus-

O.P/O.P(s)                                          : 1. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd. One Indiabulls Centre-I, 16^th Floor, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg. Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400 013 , service through its Chief Executive Offifer and Managing Director.

                                                                2.   Chief Grievance Redressal Officer, Birla sun Life Insurance Company Ltd. G-Corp Tech Park, 5^th & 6^th Floor, Kasar Vadavali near Hypercity Mall, Ghodbunder Road, Thane(W)-400601 Maharashtra.

3.  Regional Manager, Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd. 39A, Harish Mukherjee Road, (Mallick Guest House), Kolkata – 25, P.S. Bhowanipore.

 

                                                                                                                JUDGEMENT

Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President

 

This is an application under section 12 read with section 13 and 14 of the C.P Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date .

It is the short case of the complainant that he is a senior citizen and when agent of O.P Birla Sun Life Insurance Co.Ltd., the O.Ps, came to the complainant for investing the insurance products ,the complainant specifically told them that he is only interested to invest money for short term basis and accordingly policies in that direction be projected. It has further stated that some policies were projected and they tried to convince that “BSLI Vision Plan” where the investment will be made for short period and return will also come as desired by the customer. It has also stated that computerized benefit illustration for investment of three years only and return after 5 years -10 years etc. was also shown and accordingly complainant selected the said policy for investment for three years which is returnable after five years. The complainant also received Policy Bond bearing no.005354576 dated 6.2.2012  of Birla Sun Life Insurance in the name of Swapna Sengupta ,wife of the complainant and found that O.P company issued the policy for 10 years in violation of the projection plan. Complainant claimed that intentionally the O.P did not enclose the benefit illustration projection page. So, the complainant could not check what is the return that would come in the hands of the complainant   after the maturity period of investment for three years which is also in violation of the norms and procedures of the Insurance.  It has claimed that the policy bond was sent to the complainant on 19.6.2012 by Blue Dac Courier. Thereafter the representative of O.P-1 on 20.1.2013 came to collect the second renewal premium in respect of the said policy and on 24.1.2013 the complainant handed over two cheques being no.125396 of Rs.60,000/-drawn on HDFC Bank  and another cheque no.430973 drawn on HDFC Bank of Rs.1,40,000/- and the said Insurance Company assured that they will hand over receipts  for payment of second year premium to the complainant but did not get the receipts and he contacted the O.P-1 but no reply given and he visited the Branch of the O.Ps at 6, Church Lane and discussed the matter to the Manager of the O.p-1 and Manager after verifying the records intimated that they have sold another policy namely “”Guaranteed Wealth “” bearing no.005938787 dated 30.1.2013 in the name of Sujata Sengupta , Policy Mode Annual premium Rs.1,95,005/- plus other charges and policy bond was sent to Budge Budge address. It has claimed that hearing the same complainant was astonished and informed the Manager that he has no address at Budge Budge. Secondly there is no family person in the name of Sujata Sengupta and accordingly complainant asked the Manager to produce the policy records and to show that complainant has signed in the documents and to prove the documents submitted in respect of the said policy at the time of opening the policy related to any of his family members but the Manager verbally refused to produce  the  particulars. But the Manager did not reply further. Thus , the complainant claims that the said act of the O.P is unfair trade practice and he approached the Manger to cancel the first policy and refund Rs.2 lacs toward his first year premium and also refund Rs.2 lacs which was paid towards second year renewal in respect of the said policy but the O.P company by practicing unfair trade practice utilized the renewal premium for mis-selling another  policy in the name of the outsiders. Hence, the complainant.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                The O.P filed written version denying all the material allegations leveled against the complainant.

                It is the positive case of the O.P that Hon’ble National Commission has categorically laid down that after expiry of free look period the insured will be eligible to get what has been provided for in the policy terms and conditions. It has also rejected the complaint of mis-sale as is made by the complainant in the present complaint unless and until written documents are produced to establish the same. It has further alleged that the complainant has alleged cheating in paragraph 15 line 2 of the complaint. As the allegation of the complainant is of cheating which falls under the Criminal Court  this Ld. Court  should reject the complaint as the Ld. Court has no jurisdiction to try cases of cheating and the last point is that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction since office of the O.P-3 is situated within the Bhawanipore Police Station. Hence, the O.Ps pray for dismissal of the case.

                Points for decision in this case is whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps or not.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Decision with reasons

                At the very outset it must be stated that although at a glance it is seen that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction since the address of O.P-3 is within the P.S. Bhawanipore which is under the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum Unit-I , Calcutta but order no.7 dated 18.11.2014 passed by this Forum has clearly stated that this Forum has ample jurisdiction to entertain the case and as a result the petition filed by the O.P regarding maintainability of the case is liable to be rejected and O.P did not prefer any revision against the said order before Hon’ble State Commission. This order is binding upon the O.Ps. Sitting in a same chair of Forum we cannot re-open the matter whatever may be the ground. Thus we have to put our leg into the shoes of our predecessors in chair, until and unless the same is modified or set aside by the Hon’ble State Commission.

                The next point is O.P has taken a plea that complainant has observed that it is a case of cheating in his written complaint in paragraph 15 line 2 which is outside the scope of this Forum and falls within the scope of criminal court. We are aware about the fact that cheating will be decided by the Criminal Court but fact remains that complainant is a senior citizen and emotionally he may stated all these things being a common person but in paragraph 7 last line he has concluded by saying that this is an unfair trade practice, probably which has been overlooked by the Ld. Advocate of the O.P. Mere mentioning of cheating or fraud does not ousted the jurisdiction of the Forum, particularly when we are finding that there is serious unfair trade practice over the situation by changing the policy name from “”BSLI Vision Plan” converted to “Guaranteed Wealth” and name of policy holder Swapna Sengupta has been changed to Sujata Sengupta. How this type of unfairness can be overlooked sitting in a chair of Forum to redress the complaint filed by the complainant who, in his very evening of life , invested his income to maintain his family being a senior citizen and this type of unfairness of the O.Ps and their representatives should be stopped. It is very difficult to refuse the representative or agent when they approached and projected to any common person ,showing so many lucrative offers which can be easily earned if invested within a short period and the return will also come as desired by the customer, herein the complainant. So, the plea of the O.Ps will not stand on a moment scrutiny.

                Third one is that free look period :  It is known to us that if the free look period is over the policy is binding but in whose free look period? In the present case  , complainant has invested in one policy in the name of his wife Swapna Sengupta i.e. BSLI Vision Plan which is the policy for investment for three years and return after five years but if the same is radically changed with its name and also the name of the insured i.e. converted into Guaranteed Wealth and insured person Sujata Sengupta ,then why the free look period will apply or mandatory? The Hon’ble National Commission did not welcome this type of unfair business of the O.Ps and free look period is meant for the policy which was accepted by the complainant. Initially if the policy was sent in time then the free look period is applicable. But here in the instant case taking plea of free look period  will not give any relief to the O.ps whatsoever. So, the business of the O.P by engaging his representative /agent canvassing one policy and thereafter changing the same without taking consent of the insured is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and this complainant being a senior citizen has been victimized in this manner. So, if we overlook all these things then the tears of the poor complainant cannot be meted out by any Forum or Commission. We condemn this type of act of unfair trade practice of the O.Ps.

Accordingly complainant has been able to prove that he has been victimized with the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service in the hands of the O.Ps.

Hence,

                                                                                                Ordered

That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act is allowed on contest against the O.P with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the O.P to the complainant within 45 days from this date.

The O.Ps are directed to refund Rs.4 lacs along with interest @9% p.a within 45 days from the date of this order.

The O.ps are further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lac to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order ,failing which, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order through the Forum .

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the O.P through speed post and a copy of this order be handed over the complainant free of cost.

 

                                                                                                Member                                              President

Dictated and corrected by me

 

                                President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is

 

Ordered

That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act is allowed on contest against the O.P with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the O.P to the complainant within 45 days from this date.

The O.Ps are directed to refund Rs.4 lacs along with interest @9% p.a within 45 days from the date of this order.

The O.ps are further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lac to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order ,failing which, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order through the Forum .

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the O.P through speed post and a copy of this order be handed over the complainant free of cost.

 

                                                                                                Member                                              President