DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SUBARNAPUR
C.D. Case No.04 of 2014
Dukhishyam Pujari, S/o. Late Gangtadhar Pujari, aged about 62 years, R/o. Nuamalipada (Ghodaghatpara), Sonepur, P.O./P.S. Sonepur, District – Subarnapur.
………….. Complainant
Vrs.
1. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Represented th4rough its Chief Operating Officer, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune, Pin 411066, Maharastra.
2. Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Near Jaya Guru Market Complex, Main Road Gokarneswar Pada Sonepur, P.O./P.S. Sonepur, District – Subarnapur-767017(Odisha),
3. Lokesh Nayak, Ex-Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Sonepur Branch at present Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Rourkela Branch, Choudhury Complex, 1st Floor near Salimar Hotel, Panposh Road, Rourkela – 769004.
4. Biren Kumar Sahu, Ex-STM Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Sonepur Branch at present Badbazar, Sonepur in front of Brundaban Bihari Temple, P.O./P.S. Sonepur, District – Subarnapur
5. Sasmita Sahu, Agent, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Sonepur Branch at present At/P.O./P.S. Manamunda, District – Boudh
6. Hrushikesh Mishra, (Agent Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Sonepur Branch ) Goel Sanitary Progress-Inn Hotel Complex, Near Block Chowk Sonepur, P.O./P.S. Sonepur , District – Subarnapur Pin 767017 (Odisha)
7. Bikesh Kumar Agrawal, Ex-STM Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Sonepur Branch at present Goel Sanitary, Progress-Inn Hotel Complex, Near Block Chowk Sonepur, P.O./P.S. Sonepur , District – Subarnapur Pin 767017 (Odisha)
………….. Opp. Parties
Advocate for Complainant ………. Sri B.B.Bidyadhar
Advocate for the O.P. No.2 ………. Sri P.K.Purohit
Advocate for the O.P. No.4 ………. Sri R.Agrawal
Advocate for the O.P. No.6 & 7 ………. Sri A. Mishra
Present
Sri S.C.Nayak, President
Smt.S.Mishra, Lady Member
Sri H.Padhan, Male Member
Date of Judgment Dt.26.02.2018
J U D G M E N T
By Smt.S.Mishra, Lady Medmber.
The complainant, Dukhishyam Pujari has filed this complaint against the O.Ps. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. alleging deficiency of service and sufferings etc.
The stand taken by the complainant is in fact appelable to the good conscience of the Forum and the story narrated in the complaint petition cannot be undermined as untrue, but I am constrained to follow the binding precedent and bound to stick up “Procedure established by Law. ” Simply, laws are to be interpreted “as it is ” and not “ what ought to be ” . “Due process” is not the mandate of Indian judicial set up.
-: 2 :-
It is common and well settled principle of law that parties to a contract are bound by the terms and conditions as agreed upon and none of the parties can seek any relief beyond those terms and conditions.
Placing reliance on an important judgment reported in 2011 C.L.T. (I) Page 458, S.C. held that – It is trite that in a contract of insurance the rights and obligations are governed by the terms of the contract and therefore, the terms of contract of insurance have to be strictly construed and no extension can be made on the ground of equity.
Therefore, it needs little emphasis that in constructing the terms of contract of insurance the words used therein must be given paramount importance and is not open for the court to add, delete or substitute any words. So, all courts, endeavor to interpret the words in which the contract between the parties is expressed.
Brief fact of the complaint’s case :-
The complainant who is a Govt. servant after his retirement in March 2010 invested Rs.1,00,000/- Rupees One Lakh) only under Fixed deposit scheme and O.P. No.3 and 4 dishonestly motivated to invest in Fixed deposit scheme of Bajaj Allianze life insurance co. Ltd. for a period three years and also assured 17% interest per annum as against the fixed deposit.
The complainant also alleged that he had no intention to deposit any insurance scheme and that O.P. No.3 and 4 for their personal gain by deceitful means obtained signatures of the complainant over certain blank printed form and that fraudulently deposited Rs.50,000/- at Sonepur Branch and another Rs.50,000/- at Sambalpur Branch of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. under Bajaj Allianz Max Gain Plan vide Receipt Nos.0307902443 and 0307738341 in the name of the complainant. It is also alleged that the O.P. No.3 and 4 kept the complainant in dark as to the requirement of regular premium for a period of 7 years under the policy as such committed fraud upon the complainant. More so, it is alleged that the O.Ps. are involved in unfair trade practice and that the O.Ps. had neither supply the money receipts nor the policy documents in time and kept the complainant in complete dark for a long time regarding the investment.
It is also alleged that the O.P. No.2, the then Branch Manager misrepresented the complainant by saying that his money is being deposited under Fixed deposit scheme with 17% interest on completion of three years period, which amounts to gross deficiency in service.
Further, it is alleged that on 17.4.2013 the company terminated both the life insurance policy of the complainant after deducting Rs.57,000/- only from the principal money therefore it is claimed that O.Ps. are jointly and severally liable to pay the damages/compensation as sought
-: 3 :-
for and that after getting the termination letter of the above noted Max Gain Policies appertaining to letter dated 17.4.2013 alongwith refund cheque bearing No.491760 dated 17.4.2013 of Rs.21,769/- and Cheque bearing No.49176 dt.17.4.2013 of Rs.21,771/- the complainant sent registered pleader notice upon the O.Ps., claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- but unheeded. Therefore, this case was filed against the O.Ps. and accordingly sought for compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- in total.
In this case none of the O.Ps. filed their written version nor participated in the hearing.
On perusal of pleading and available evidence, it is seen that, there is no corroboration at all regarding the pleading and the documentary evidence filed by the complainant. There is nothing on the record, except mere pleading to show that the investment of money was for fixed deposit as claimed and not for investment towards life insurance policy. Admittedly the complainant is a retired Govt. servant and educated person, remained silent for a long period and not disputed the nature of investment. The money receipts as filed by the complainant is evident of the fact that the investment was for life insurance policy.
In this case the O.Ps. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. has issued Receipt No.0307902443 and 0307738341 in favour of the complainant for Rs.50,000/- each. Admittedly one is of the Sonepur Branch and the other is of Sambalpur Branch. The O.Ps. are also admitted the fact that they have received the amount from the complainant vide termination of policy letters dt.17.04.2013 (2 Nos.). The contents of the two receipts clearly say that the receipts are issued to the complainant for effecting life Insurance Policy, further it says that amount held in deposit will not attract any interest.
So “a person may lie but a document never ”. It is important to note that after receiving the receipts, why the complainant could not agitated the matter if he had no intention to invest in any insurance scheme. It is because the complainant must have received both the receipts much prior to the termination of the policy.
Another important point to be considered is that the complainant is disputing his signature in the proposal form, etc. but original proposal form is not available or has not been filed or called for at least for comparison and proof. Added to this “fraud” as alleged is a complex matter its cannot be decided in a summary proceeding taking note of contrary documentary evidence as filed by the complainant. So also wrongful loss and wrongful gain cannot be acceptable unless it is well proved and reasonable corroborated. In this case the details regarding
-: 4 :-
the proposal form and terms and conditions of the policy has not been filed. Therefore the validity of termination letter of O.Ps. dt.17.4.2013 (2 Nos.) cannot be decided. Moreover, such termination letters of O.Ps. cannot be set aside unless fraud, inducement act, as alleged are proved.
In this case the O.Ps. have not filed their written version nor participated in the hearing therefore on such ground adverse inference can be taken against them. But, such inference cannot be drawn because the documentary evidence filed by the complainant is completely contradictory to his pleading.
Evidence Act clearly mandate that oral evidence is excluded which contradicts, varies or adds to or subtract from the terms of a contract, grant or other disposition of property. Therefore, it a document is neither a contract, nor a grant, nor a disposition of property oral evidence can be granted to vary its contents. In case of a contract anything which is not a term of the contract may be contradicted by oral evidence, otherwise not.
It is also settled that oral evidence may be adduced by parties to the document to show that writing signed by them does not represent complete transaction. So the complainant is required to prove by adducing reliable evidence. Therefore in this case the complainant is to prove any all fact which would in valided the contract of insurance as effected between the parties. To adjudge a document/contract as voidable or void – requires sufficient reliable evidence as such it cannot be decided in a summary procedure. In other words it can be said that the entire policy documents are the product of fraud, inducement etc. can be proved in a competent civil court.
In other way, taking note of the fact and circumstance and the evidence on record the crux of the dispute is that the complainant wanted to deposit, invest the said amount in fixed deposit instead of life insurance policy of the O.Ps., cannot be decided in the Forum.
The O.Ps. determine both the policy on the ground of non payment of regular premium and accordingly with the termination letters surrender value of both the policy vide policy No.0163847451 of Rs.21,769/- bearing cheque No.491760 dt.17.04.2013 and for policy No.0163840238 of Rs.21771/- bearing cheque No.491764 dt.17.04.2013 are being enclosed in favour of the complainant.
-: 5 :-
In this case whether both the cheques are received and enchased by the complainant or not has not been pleaded. It is also not pleaded that whether the cheques are received and enchased with objection. In my view those information are vital and necessary to assist the forum to adjudicate the matter. There is also no scope to know the O.Ps. have unjustly calculated the surrender value after terminating the policy on default, since no document has been filed in this respect.
The Xerox copy of document vide policy No.0163847451 dt.14.4.2010 vide reference No.K3C (Partly filed) clearly shows that it is a regular premium life Insurance policy to be paid for 7 years.
Taking note of all the facts and circumstances, the matter cannot be decided on merit in this forum, so, I am constrained to dismissed the case with a liberty for the complainant to agitate before competent civil court for proper relief by taking benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act, hence it is ordered accordingly.
Dated the 26th February 2018
Typed to my dictation
I agree. I agree. and corrected by me.
Sri H.Pradhan, Sri S.C.Nayak Smt.S.Mishra,
Male Member President Lady Member
Dt.26.02.2018 Dt.26.02.2018 Dt.26.02.2018
