Present:
For the Complainant :Sh.Sandeep Goria, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 :Sh.Amit Goyal, Advocate.
For Opposite Party No.3 : Exparte.
For Opposite Party No. 4 : Exparte.
Quorum:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President.
Sh.Mohinder Singh Brar, Member.
Smt.Aparana Kundi, Member.
Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
- The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that the husband of the Complainant is having friendly relations with Opposite Party No. 4 and he was very well in knowledge about the financial status of the family of the Complainant. The Complainant alleges that in the month of February, 2016, the Complainant was planning for some investment and husband of the Complainant discussed about the same with Opposite Party No. 4 and he told to the husband of the Complainant that he has good relation with Opposite Party No.3 and in case the Complainant invest Rs.One lakh in the company of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, she will get return after 3 years alongwith growth of 24%. The Complainant further alleges that as per the directions of Opposite Party No. 4, she visited the office of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 where Opposite Party No.3 assured the Complainant that in case, the Complainant invests Rs.One lakh in their company, she will get the policy cover of Rs.10 lakhs and the Complainant shall be at liberty to withdraw her said amount at any time alongwith interest minimum @ 24%. Thus, as per the advise of Opposite Party No.3, the Complainant handed over Rs.One lakh to Opposite Party No.3 and after receiving the amount, Opposite Party No.3 obtained her signatures and her son Gurpal Singh on various documents. But it is utter surprise of the Complainant when she received the copy of policy bearing No. 160314628109, in which it was mentioned that said amount of Rs.One lakh is annual installment and the Complainant has to further pay the same amount to Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 every year. The Complainant immediately returned the said policy to Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 and requested to return her amount, but the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 made threat to keep silent otherwise ready to face dire consequences. Thereafter, the Complainant also served legal notice dated 02.01.2018 upon the Opposite Parties, but instead of admitting the claim of the Complainant, the Opposite Parties sent false and baseless reply. Due to the aforesaid acts and conduct and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has suffered mental tension, harassment as well as financial loss. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- The Opposite Parties may be directed to refund the amount of Rs.One lakh alongwith interest @ 24% per annum and also to pay Rs.One lakh on account of compensation for causing her mental tension and harassment and Rs.50,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the Complainant has got no locus standi to file the instant complaint since the policy in question bearing No.160314628109 was issued in the name of Gurpal Singh who is major and had out of his free will opted for a Unit Linked Regular Premium “Aegon Life Future Protect Insurance Policy” and the present complaint has been filed without any legal authority and is liable to be dismissed. No cause of action arose in favour of the Complainant against the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 as per the terms & conditions of the insurance contract and the complaint of the Complainant is hopelessly pre mature. The policy in question was issued on the life of Gurpal Singh strictly in accordance with the proposal form dated 15.03.2016 submitted by Gurpal Singh (having date of birth as 21.08.1986) duly signed in English language and the Complainant himself had opted for a benefit term of 15 years and premium payment term of 15 years without any coercion or force and the policy was issued with date of commencement as 22.03.2016 and date of maturity as 21.03.2031, hence the complaint lacks any cause of action and is liable to be dismissed at the outset. Further alleges that the complaint of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed in limine as he being a prudent person proposed for the Unit Linked Regular Premium “Aegon Life Future Protect Insurance Policy” after fully understanding the feature, benefits and terms and conditions thereof and submitted a proposal form dated 15.03.2016. The Complainant himself opted to pay yearly regular premiums @ Rs.1 lakh for premium payment term and benefit term of 15 years. The proposal of the Complainant was accepted by the Opposite Parties in the normal course of insurance business and the policy in question was issued with date of commencement as 22.03.2016 for sum assured of Rs.10 lakhs. The original policy bond containing express terms and conditions of the insurance contract was dispatched vide Speed Post No.EA584352201IN dated 23.03.2016 which was delivered to him 01.04.2016 as per the confirmation received from the postal authority. However, the Complainant was offered 15 days Free Look Cancellation Period from the date of receipt of the policy bond to review the terms and conditions of the contact as per the Policy Holders Protection Regulation, 2002 and if he was dissatisfied with the said terms and conditions of the policy, he would have give written notice to Opposite Parties to cancel the policy within the said period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy bond. However, the Complainant being fully satisfied with the proposed plan and terms and conditions of the policy bond never approached the Opposite Parties to cancel the policy within 15 days Free Look Cancellation period or any time thereafter and did not return the policy bond seeking refund of premium permissible as per the terms of the meaning thereby that he was fully satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy are deemed to be admitted on the part of the Complainant. The answering Opposite Party never made any promise to make the payment of any fixed amount or any interest @ 24% per annum upon payment of single premium. Moreover, the applicant had purchased the policy with an intent to earn profit and the transactions made by him can be construed as speculative investment matter which does not fall within the purview of the Public Utility Services Act, 1987 and the policy having been taken for investment of the premium amount in the share market, which is for speculative gain and the application did not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Moreover, the complaint is legally not maintainable as the Complainant has levelled allegations of mis-representation which can not be tried in the summary trial before this District Consumer Commission as the complex, disputed and complicated mattes involving allegations of fraud & forgery can be adjudicated by the Civil Courts. On merits, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 took all most same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with special costs has been made.
3. On notice, Opposite Party No.3 was duly served, but none has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3, as such Opposite Party No.3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.04.2018 of this District Consumer Commission.
4. Similarly, notice to Opposite Party No. 4 was also served. Sh.Davinder Singh-Opposite Party No. 4 appeared in person and filed the written reply taking the preliminary objections stating that the Opposite Party No. 4 has no concern with Opposite Parties No.1, 2 or 3. In fact, there was a party faction in the village and in the election of Sarpanch, Opposite Party No.4 was the supporter of the Opposite Party of the Complainant and under this grudge, the Complainant is tried to involve the name of the Opposite Party No. 4 just to harass, humiliate and grab money from him for which the Complainant has no right to do so. On merits, Opposite Party No. 4 took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by him in the preliminary objections, but after filing the written reply, none has come present on behalf of Opposite Party No. 4, hence Opposite Party No. 4 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.08.2018 of this District Consumer Commission.
5. In order to prove her case, the complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 and closed her evidence.
6. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Ashish Ovalekar Ex.Ops1,2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.
7. We have heard the ld. counsel for the Complainant as well as ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
8. Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the averments as narrated in the complaint and contended that the husband of the Complainant is having friendly relations with Opposite Party No. 4 and he was very well in knowledge abut the financial status of the family of the Complainant. Further contended that in the month of February, 2016, the Complainant was planning for some investment and husband of the Complainant discussed about the same with Opposite Party No. 4 and he told to the husband of the Complainant that he has good relation with Opposite Party No.3 and in case the Complainant invest Rs.One lakh in the company of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, she will get return after 3 years alongwith growth of 24%. The Complainant further alleges that as per the directions of Opposite Party No. 4, she visited the office of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 where Opposite Party No.3 assured the Complainant that in case, the Complainant invests Rs.One lakh in their company, she will get the policy cover of Rs.10 lakhs and the Complainant shall be at liberty to withdraw her said amount at any time alongwith interest minimum @ 24%. Thus, as per the advise of Opposite Party No.3, the Complainant handed over Rs.One lakh to Opposite Party No.3 and after receiving the amount, Opposite Party No.3 obtained her signatures and her son Gurpal Singh on various documents. But it is utter surprise of the Complainant when she received the copy of policy bearing No. 160314628109, in which it was mentioned that said amount of Rs.One lakh is annual installment and the Complainant has to further pay the same amount to Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 every year. The Complainant immediately returned the said policy to Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 and requested to return her amount, but the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 made threat to keep silent otherwise ready to face dire consequences. Thereafter, the Complainant also served legal notice dated 02.01.2018 upon the Opposite Parties, but instead of admitting the claim of the Complainant, the Opposite Parties sent false and baseless reply and hence, deficiency is writ large on the part of the Opposite Parties.
9. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Complainant on the ground that the Complainant has got no locus standi to file the instant complaint since the policy in question bearing No.160314628109 was issued in the name of Gurpal Singh who is major and had out of his free will opted for a Unit Linked Regular Premium “Aegon Life Future Protect Insurance Policy” and the present complaint has been filed without any legal authority and is liable to be dismissed. No cause of action arose in favour of the Complainant against the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 as per the terms & conditions of the insurance contract and the complaint of the Complainant is hopelessly pre mature. The policy in question was issued on the life of Gurpal Singh strictly in accordance with the proposal form dated 15.03.2016 submitted by Gurpal Singh (having date of birth as 21.08.1986) duly signed in English language and the Complainant himself had opted for a benefit term of 15 years and premium payment term of 15 years without any coercion or force and the policy was issued with date of commencement as 22.03.2016 and date of maturity as 21.03.2031, hence the complaint lacks any cause of action and is liable to be dismissed at the outset. Further contended that the complaint of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed in limine as he being a prudent person proposed for the Unit Linked Regular Premium “Aegon Life Future Protect Insurance Policy” after fully understanding the feature, benefits and terms and conditions thereof and submitted a proposal form dated 15.03.2016. The Complainant himself opted to pay yearly regular premiums @ Rs.1 lakh for premium payment term and benefit term of 15 years. The proposal of the Complainant was accepted by the Opposite Parties in the normal course of insurance business and the policy in question was issued with date of commencement as 22.03.2016 for sum assured of Rs.10 lakhs. The original policy bond containing express terms and conditions of the insurance contract was dispatched vide Speed Post No.EA584352201IN dated 23.03.2016 which was delivered to him 01.04.2016 as per the confirmation received from the postal authority. However, the Complainant was offered 15 days Free Look Cancellation Period from the date of receipt of the policy bond to review the terms and conditions of the contact as per the Policy Holders Protection Regulation, 2002 and if he was dissatisfied with the said terms and conditions of the policy, he would have give written notice to Opposite Parties to cancel the policy within the said period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy bond. However, the Complainant being fully satisfied with the proposed plan and terms and conditions of the policy bond never approached the Opposite Parties to cancel the policy within 15 days Free Look Cancellation period or any time thereafter and did not return the policy bond seeking refund of premium permissible as per the terms of the meaning thereby that he was fully satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy are deemed to be admitted on the part of the Complainant. The answering Opposite Party never made any promise to make the payment of any fixed amount or any interest @ 24% per annum upon payment of single premium. Moreover, the applicant had purchased the policy with an intent to earn profit and the transactions made by him can be construed as speculative investment matter which does not fall within the purview of the Public Utility Services Act, 1987 and the policy having been taken for investment of the premium amount in the share market, which is for speculative gain and the application did not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Moreover, the complaint is legally not maintainable as the Complainant has levelled allegations of mis-representation which can not be tried in the summary trial before this District Consumer Commission as the complex, disputed and complicated mattes involving allegations of fraud & forgery can be adjudicated by the Civil Courts. On merits, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 took all most same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.
10. Ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 further contended the intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination which is not possible in the summary procedure under the Consumer Protection Act and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the Civil Court and this District Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. So far as the objection that complicated question of the fact is involved as such the Insured be relegated to go before Civil Court, is concerned, The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was enacted with object to provide for better protection of the interests of the consumers and for that purpose, to make provision for the establishment of consumer council and other authorities for settlement of consumer disputes and other matter connected therewith. Section 13 (4) confers same powers upon the authorities under the Act, which are vested in Civil Court under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while trying a suit in respect of (i) The summoning and enforcing the attendance of any defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath, (ii) the discovery and production of any document or other material object producible as evidence, (iii) the reception of evidence on affidavits, (iv) the requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test the appropriate laboratory or from other relevant source, (v) issuing of any commission for the examination of any witness and (vi) any other matter which may be prescribed. The authorities are conferred jurisdiction to decide the issue of “unfair trade practice” which has been defined under Section 2 (r) of the Act. This definition is similar to the definition of “fraud” as given under Section 17 of Indian Contract Act, 1872. From these provisions it is clear that this Commission can hold a full trail as held by civil court or adopt summary procedure for decision of any complaint. Under the Act, although the jurisdiction of the authorities is limited to consumer complaint, but while deciding such complaint no limit has been fixed for adjudicating of the dispute. Three Judges Bench of Supreme Court in Dr. J.J. Merchant Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi, (2002) 6 SCC 635, (paragraph-7) held that the object and purpose of the Act is to render simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumer with complaint against defective goods and deficient services and the benevolent piece of legislation, intended to protect a large body of consumer from exploitation. Consumer Forum is an alternate Forum, established under the Act, to discharge the function of Civil Court. Under the Act, the consumers are provided with an alternative efficacious and speedy remedy. As such the Consumer Forum is an alternative forum established under the Act to discharge the functions of Civil Court. Therefore, delay in disposal of the complaint would not be a ground for rejecting the complaint and directing the complainant to approach the Civil Court. The argument that the complicated question of fact cannot be decided by the Forum, has been specifically rejected (In paragraph-12). Similar view has been taken in Amar Jwala Paper Mills Vs. State Bank of India, (1998) 8 SCC 387, CCI Chambers Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233. Recently, Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in CC No. 101 of 2009 titled as mahalaxmi Dyes & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited decided on 07.09.2021 also held so. Hence, this District Consumer Commission is not convinced with the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.
11. The main contention of the ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 is that the Complainant being a prudent person proposed for the Unit Linked Regular Premium “Aegon Life Future Protect Insurance Policy” after fully understanding the feature, benefits and terms and conditions thereof and submitted a proposal form dated 15.03.2016. The Complainant himself opted to pay yearly regular premiums @ Rs.1 lakh for premium payment term and benefit term of 15 years. The proposal of the Complainant was accepted by the Opposite Parties in the normal course of insurance business and the policy in question was issued with date of commencement as 22.03.2016 for sum assured of Rs.10 lakhs. The original policy bond containing express terms and conditions of the insurance contract was dispatched vide Speed Post No.EA584352201IN dated 23.03.2016 which was delivered to him 01.04.2016 as per the confirmation received from the postal authority. However, the Complainant was offered 15 days Free Look Cancellation Period from the date of receipt of the policy bond to review the terms and conditions of the contact as per the Policy Holders Protection Regulation, 2002 and if he was dissatisfied with the said terms and conditions of the policy, he would have give written notice to Opposite Parties to cancel the policy within the said period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy bond. However, the Complainant being fully satisfied with the proposed plan and terms and conditions of the policy bond never approached the Opposite Parties to cancel the policy within 15 days Free Look Cancellation period or any time thereafter and did not return the policy bond seeking refund of premium permissible as per the terms of the meaning thereby that he was fully satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy are deemed to be admitted on the part of the Complainant. The answering Opposite Party never made any promise to make the payment of any fixed amount or any interest @ 24% per annum upon payment of single premium. Moreover, the applicant had purchased the policy with an intent to earn profit and the transactions made by him can be construed as speculative investment matter which does not fall within the purview of the Public Utility Services Act, 1987 and the policy having been taken for investment of the premium amount in the share market, which is for speculative gain and the application did not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. It has been held by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.658 of 2012 titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited and others decided on 23.04.2013 that where the investment made by the petitioner/ complainant in Unit Linked Insurance Policies to gain the profit, it was invested for commercial purposes and therefore, the petitioner/ complainant is not a consumer of the Opposite Party. Hon’ble State Commission, Orisha in First Appeal No.162 of 2010 in case Smt.Abanti Kumari Sahoo Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited have held that the money of the petitioner/ complainant invested in the share market is no doubt a speculative gain and the speculative investment matter does not come under the Consumer Protection Act and accordingly, the Hon’ble State Commission, dismissed the appeal. Similar are the facts of the present case as the complainant has directed the Opposite Party to invest her amount of premium in the share market to gain profit. Investment in the share market is no doubt a speculative gain and the speculative investment matter does not come under the Consumer Protection Act.
12. But it is not disputed that the Complainant has deposited Rs.One lakh with the Opposite Parties on the allurement of Harmanjot Singh-Opposite Party No.3 who is a Advisor/ Broker of 1 Opposite Party No.2 as well as on the assurance of Opposite Party No. 4-Davinder Singh who was having good relation with the family of Complainant and on their allurement, the Complainant deposited her hard earned amount of Rs.One lakh with Opposite Parties No.1 and 2-Aegon Life. Perusal of the letter written by Aegonlife- Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 (Ex.C4) admittedly proves that Opposite Party No.3-Harmanjot Singh is an advisor/ broker of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 having code No.10047536, with Mobile No.91152-13135 and now Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 can not escape from their liability to make good the loss of the Complainant. The role of an insurance broker/ agent is to act as a link between insurance companies and customers with right and suitable advice and not to keep the customers into dark only due to his greediness of for his brokerage.
13. Perusal of the record shows that Opposite Parties No. 3 and 4 despite due service, did not bother to defend their case by producing any cogent or convincing evidence, rather chose to remain exparte. To corroborate her assertion, the Complainant has placed on record her duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9. The aforesaid evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged through any cogent and convincing evidence on record as Opposite Parties No. 3 and 4 , despite due service, did not opt contest the proceedings. In this way, the Opposite Parties No. 3 and 4 have impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint. It also shows that Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 have no defence to offer or defend the complaint.
14. So, from the entire unrebutted and unchallenged evidence produced by the complainant on record, it stands fully proved on record that admittedly, the Complainant invested her hard earned money of Rs.One lakh with Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 on the allurement of Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 taking the Complainant in confidence, and hence, in our considered view, ends of justice would be fully met if the Opposite Parties No. 3 and 4 is ordered to return the hard earned invested amount of Rs.One lakh of the Complainant.
15. In views of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint of the complainant against Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 (Harmanjit Singh alias Harmanjot Singh and Davinder Singh) and Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 (Harmanjit Singh alias Harmanjot Singh and Davinder Singh) are directed to refund the amount of Rs.One lakh alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of its deposit i.e. 22.03.2016 till its actual realization. However, complaint against Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 (Aegon Life) stands dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the, the parties are left to bear their own costs. The compliance of this order be made by Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 (Harmanjit Singh alias Harmanjot Singh and Davinder Singh) within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
16. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated: 02.11.2021.
