BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.436 of 2016
Date of Instt. 18.10.2016
Date of Decision: 17.07.2018
Sohan Singh S/o Sumand Singh r/o Mohalla Satnampura, Near Kothi Raulan, Phagwara, Distt. Kapurthala.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited. Through its, Authorized Signatory. 2nd Floor, Paranjpe “B” Scheme, Subhash Road, Near Garware House, Vileparle (East), Mumbai-400057.
2. Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited. Through its Branch Manager. Puda Complex, Opp. Tehsil Complex, Jalandhar.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Sh. AK Gandhi, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. NPS Thind, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 and 2.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is retired as Principal and has been surviving his life with the help of his pension as the complainant has no any other source of income. The complainant is having good reputation in the society. The complainant is the consumer of the OPs. The complainant is the victim of malafide practice played by the agents and officials of the OPs and got invested the hard earning money.
2. That agent namely Hardeep Singh of the OPs No.1 and 2 approached the complainant in the year 2011 and induced him to purchase a policies of OPs No.1 and 2. The agent of the OPs No.1 and 2 used to visit in the house of the complainant twice and thrice in a week and made friendly relations with the family members of the complainant and induced the complainant to purchase the policies of the OPs No.1 and 2. The complainant trapped into the net of the agent of the OPs No.1 and 2 and the agent fraudulently by concealment of material facts sale 23 policies to the complainant in one year on the pretext that all are one time investment policies. The agent of the OPs No.1 and 2 assured the complainant that he will get double of the amount on maturity i.e. after five years and also get medical benefits if the complainant invest his money in accordance with him. The complainant is a heart patient and having a age of 83 years. It is worthwhile to mention here that the complainant could not hear properly due to the certain problem in his ears. The agent of the OPs No.1 and 2 assured the complainant that he can get medical expenses against the policies of OPs No.1 and 2 company. The agent of the OPs in order to take the complainant into his trap and also introduced with one official of the OPs No.1 and 2 namely Abhishake Singh, who introduced himself as Zonal Manager of the OPs No.1 and 2 company at Noida. He told to the complainant that if the complainant firstly purchased at least three policies in his name and in the name of his family members, then he can claim his medical expenses from the company and the amount invested in the company will be doubled after 5 years as there is only a one time investment plan. The agent and the official Abhishake Singh firstly sold five policies in name of the complainant bearing No.110913257834 dated 27.09.2011, bearing No.111013285048 dated 21.10.2011, bearing No.111113313420 dated 14.11.2011, Policy bearing No.111113322505 dated 08.12.2011 and Policy bearing No.111113322994 dated 08.12.2011. The agents of the OPs had taken the amount of Rs.1,41,900/- at first instance. After selling of the policies, the official and agent of the OPs No.1 and 2 assured the complainant that he will receive the double of the amount after 5 years i.e. in the year 2016 and 2017 along with medical benefits.
3. That after in the end of November, 2011 the complainant received a call from the official of the OPs No.1 and 2 namely Abhishake Singh, who informed the complainant that the name of the complainant has selected for special bonus, monthly pension and gold through draw. He also told the complainant that the complainant would be given Rs.12,00,000/- as bonus, Rs.15,000/- as monthly pension and 50 gram Gold. The official of the OPs also told the complainant that he would have to deposit Rs.3,00,000/- as security with the company i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- for each benefit. He also told the complainant that the complainant will receive a telephonic call in this regard from the company head office as sequence for release of the awarded amount. It was assured by the official Abhishake Singh to the complainant that the security amount of Rs.3,00,000/- will be returned to the complainant later on. In order to take the complainant into fraudulent trap, the complainant got received a call from Mumbai from one Gargi Mittal, who claimed herself to be a director of the OP No.1 and 2. She confirmed the award which will be given to the complainant and told the complainant that she is the final authority of the OPs and has authority to provide the benefits to the complainant as mentioned above. After the receipt of the complainant call from one Deepika, who claimed to be an employee of the RBI Hyderabad through her mobile No.9112006736506 and she told the complainant that she had received Rs.12,00,000/- as Bonus on behalf of the complainant from OPs, but due to agent code, half of the money would go to the agent, which could be saved by removing agent code. She told the complainant that to deposit Rs.3,00,000/- as security in the shape of policies of the OPs in the name of different persons known to the complainant and security will be refunded to the complainant along with Bonus. The same security was also given by the other officials namely Rajiv Agnohotry, Atul Kaushik and Bikram Kyshap to the complainant for taking the complainant into their false trap. In this way, 23 polices worth Rs.10,99,000/- were sold to the complainant by the officials and agents of the OPs under the pretext of security for the release of the benefits of the complainant.
4. That the officials of the OPs namely Abhishake Singh, Gargi Mittal, Deepika, Rajiv Agnihotry, Atul Kaushik and Bikram Kyshap with malafide intention and in order to pass the free look period mentioned in the policies concocted the story of bonus and other benefits to be provided to the complainant. The complainant's being soft target got in the trap of the officials and the agent of the OPs and invested his hard earning money in the policies of the OPs.
5. That the complainant several times approached to the OPs for the cancellation of the policies, which were sold to the complainant by misrepresentation by the officials and agents of the OPs. The complainant even several times visited the office of the OP No.1 for surrendering of the policies, but the official of the OPs flatly refused to entertain the lawful demand of the complainant and rather ultimately refused to accept the policies and refused to pay the even the surrender value of the complainant, then the complainant served a legal notice dated 03.06.2016 to the OPs to refund the money, but all in vain and as such, the act of the complainant is clear cut deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice and thus, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,41,900/-, illegally got invested from the complainant by the OPs, along with interest @ 18% per annum to the complainant and further OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment and financial loss.
6. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed a reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the policy documents and proposal forms clearly mentioned the policy term, the policy payment term and frequency. The complainant has not used his right to cancel the said policies during the free-look period and further alleged that the complainant has filed a complaint for 23 policies issued from the company. Out of these 23 policies, only 5 policies belong to him, in the rest of the policies, he is neither the proposer nor life assured, hence, he has no locus standi to file complaint on behalf of those. That the instant complaint is false, malicious, vexatious and incorrect and is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law. It is further alleged that the complainant has availed the services of the insurance from an Insurance Broker, but the said Insurance Broker has not been impleaded as a party in the present complaint, whereas the said broker is necessary party, therefore, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of the necessary party and further alleged that the company had provided insurance cover on the life of the complainant and further acted strictly as per the policy terms and conditions, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. It is further averred that the company received the duly filled and signed proposal form of the complainant and as per the mandate given in the form, issued the said policies believing what is stated in the proposal form to be true and correct. As per the proposal, the company issued Aegon Money Back Plus Plan with payment term of 10 years and policy term of 16 years. The complainant was very well aware that he was taking the said policies as he himself affixed his signature on the proposal forms and has admitted the same in his complaint. The complainant is an educated and he should have read and understood the policy contract before and signing. Hence, it is assumed that the complainant must have gone through the policy documents. On merits, the factun in regard to purchase of insurance policy by the complainant is not denied, but the remaining allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA along with documents Mark C-1 to Mark C-9 and then closed the evidence.
8. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A along with some documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and then closed the evidence.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
10. After taking into consideration the respective submission of both the parties and find that the complainant admittedly purchased 23 policies from the OP in a one year and out of which, five insurance policies are in the name of the complainant and others are in the names of his family members. The claim of the complainant is only that the official of the OPs gave assurance that only one time premium is to be paid and after five years, on maturity of the insurance policy double amount will be paid to the complainant. Apart from that a medical benefit will also be provided to the insurer, but after five years i.e. in the year 2016, when the complainant approached to the OP for refund of the matured amount of the policies, but they refused and as such, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the OPs be directed to refund the whole amount of the complainant or in alternative refund the surrender value of the policy as per IRDA Regulations and copy of the same placed on the file by the complainant as Mark C-1.
11. The case of the complainant is refuted by the OP on the ground that the complainant has claimed insurance claim of 23 policies, whereas only 5 policies stand in the name of the complainant and as such, he is neither authorized by the other insurer to file the instant complaint, therefore, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable.
12. The second objection raised by the OP is that the complainant is a well educated person, as he himself enumerated in the complaint that he is a retired principal, so, there is no doubt he is well aware about the different languages including English and at the time of purchasing of the insurance policy, a proposal form for each insurance policy was filled by the complainant after going through the terms and conditions of the each policy and as per policies purchased by the complainant, which are known “Aegon Money Back Plus Plan”, the said policy is for a term of 10 years for making a payment of premium and maturity term of the said policy is 16 years and these factum are well mentioned in the proposal form and after admitting these things, the complainant put his signature on proposal form and therefore, the complainant has no right to show any ignorance of the said terms and conditions at this stage, just to file the present false complaint.
13. Admittedly, only five policies are stand in the name of the complainant, whereas the other policies are not relating to the complainant in any manner, however, the same are in the names of the family members of the complainant, but in order to file, like this complaint, the complainant has to get either authority letter or power of attorney, then he can file the complaint, but in this complaint, he has not mentioned any factum in regard to getting any power of attorney or authority letter from the said insurer, therefore, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
14. Apart from above, we have also considered the other aspect raised by the OP that the complainant is educated person and he put his signature on the proposal form after going through the contents of the same, these facts having no doubt because the complainant himself elaborated in the opening line of the complaint that he is a retired principal, so, he is well aware about the law and regulation that whenever put any signature on any document, firstly the contents of the same should be clarified, it is not the case of the complainant that he is a illiterate rustic villager, if so, then situation may be different. So, keeping in mind these factum, we have to analyze the evidence brought on the file by the complainant as well as OPs, first of all, the complainant himself brought on the file photostat copy of the proposal form attached with the document Mark C-2 and the said proposal form is admittedly signed by the insurer and the policy term is mentioned in this proposal form at Page No.3 is 16 years and premium paying term is mentioned 10 years and similar period have been mentioned in the other proposal forms, which are 5 proposal forms produced on the file by the OP and tendered by way of one document Ex.OP-1. So, if the term of paying premium is 10 years, then the complainant has to pay the premium for 10 years and thereafter, he can claim, the maturity period of 5 years as alleged by the complainant is not established from any document, it is simple oral allegation of the complainant, which are not acceptable as per law, so by accepting the documentary evidence, we can say that there is no deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs rather there is a directly fault on the part of the complainant for not depositing the premium for 10 years rather deposited only one premium and if the complainant after depositing one premium was not happy with the terms and conditions of the policy, then he can apply for refund of the premium within a Free Look Period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of insurance policy, but the complainant did not to do so for the best known reason and as such, the case of the complainant is not covered under the IRDA Regulations Mark C-1.
15. Further, there is an other material ambiguity in this case, is that the complainant himself is not aware whether the OP has got invested a sum of Rs.10,99,902/- or Rs.1,41,900/-. In the complaint, in para No.17 Prayer Clause, the complainant alleged that the OP got invested a sum of Rs.1,41,900/- for the purchase of the insurance policy, whereas in the legal notice Mark C-7, the complainant alleged that the OP got invested a sum of Rs.10,99,902/- from the complainant for purchase of the insurance policy, so, if the complainant himself is not aware how much amount he invested for the purchase of the policy, then again the case of the complainant came under the scenario of doubtful manner and accordingly, we reach to conclusion that the complainant could not able to prove his case and therefore, we are of the opinion that the complaint of the complainant fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
16. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
17.07.2018 Member President
