BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.239 of 2019
Date of Instt. 04.07.2019
Date of Decision: 04.01.2023
Dwarka Dass aged about 44 years son of Puran Chand, C/o Bakshi Company, Dhariwal Fateh Nangal, presently posted at Police Lines, Jalandhar as employee of Punjab Police.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. AIA Life Insurance Company Limited, B-Wing, 9th Floor, Think Techno Campus, Behind TCS Pokhran Road No.2, Close to Eastern Express Highway, Thane, West, Maharashtra-400607, through its Manager/Authorized Person.
2. AIA Life Insurance Company Limited, PUDA Complex, Opp. D. C. Office/Tehsil Main Gate, Court to Tehsil Road, Jalandhar City, through its Incharge/Manager/Authorized Signatory.
3. HDFC Bank Limited, Plot No.C-110, Second Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-7, Mohali, S. A. S. Nagar through its authorized signatory.
4. Amit Sharma, employee of HDFC Bank Limited, Plot No.C-110, Second Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-7, Mohali, S. A. S. Nagar.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Jatinder Sharma, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. Rajat Chopra, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.
OPs No.3 & 4 exparte.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is working in Punjab Police as Head Constable and is having an account with HDFC Bank, G.T. Road, Jalandhar. In the month of April, 2018 during working hours the complainant received a telephone call from OP No. 4, who is official of OP No. 3 and the complainant was induced by the OP No. 4 that they have checked the credentials of the complainant and the complainant was held eligible for obtaining a loan, to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- from the OP No. 3 and the complainant adhering to the inducement availed loan facility of Rs.6,18,000/- and after deducting an amount of Rs.2,76,000/- qua outstanding loan amount, an amount of Rs.3,42,000/- was transferred in the account of the complainant on 21.04.2018. After sometime when the complainant obtained his bank statement he was shocked to see that an amount of Rs.1,04,500/- was deduced from his account and when the complainant enquired about the same from the OP No. 4, the complainant was surprised when he was told by OP No. 4 that one policy was issued to the complainant of OPs No. 1 & 2. The complainant never took any policy from OPs No. 1 & 2 at any point of time, moreover, if any policy was ever availed by the complainant his documents might be supplied to the complainant, but till date no documents qua the alleged policy was ever provided/supplied to the complainant. The complainant met OP No. 2 and requested him to do the needful and to reimburse the amount of policy, but he flatly refused on the pretext that the complainant had signed the policy papers himself and later on the policy was supplied to the complainant and the look in period had already been lapsed, so he refused to accede to the request of the complainant. The complainant had only availed loan from HDFC Bank and he never signed on any policy papers at any point of time. Thereafter, the complainant many times telephonically requested the OP No. 4 to cancel the policy and to refund the amount of policy to which he refused and the complainant was told to approach OPs No. 1 & 2. The complainant moved an application dated 07.10.2018 before OPs No. 1 & 2 requesting the official concern to cancel the policy and to refund the amount of policy to which they refused vide their letter dated No. 01.11.2018. It is pertinent to mention here that from the letter dated 01.11.2018 the complainant came to know about the number of policy, which is C249820290. A legal notice served upon the OPs No. 1 and 2 through his counsel, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the amount of policy of the complainant. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OPs No.3 & 4 did not appear and ultimately, OPs No.3 & 4 were proceeded against exparte, whereas OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint under the reply is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead the Commission and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is further averred that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action ever arose in favour of the complainant and against the answering OPs to file the present complaint and hence, the complaint under reply is an abuse of the process of law and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed, with exemplary cost. It is further averred that the complainant created a false story in his complaint to mislead this Commission by concocting and distorting the facts and circumstances of the present case. The complainant i.e. Sh Dwarka Dass “Life Assured” (herein after referred to as LA) had submitted to the answering opposite parties, an online proposal/application dated 23.04.2018 for the purchase of TATA AIA Smart Income Plus Plan for his own life with an annual premium of Rs.1,00,000/-, premium paying term was 7 years, the policy term was 15 years, premium frequency was annual & sum assured was Rs.11,00,000/-. The proposal was accepted on the standard rates based on the information provided by the LA and consequently a policy was issued bearing policy No.C249820290 dated 26.04.2018 and the same commenced on 26.04.2018. The present complaint is an afterthought and has only been filed with the ulterior motives to harass and humiliate the answering opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs. Before acceptance of the proposal/application by answering opposite parties, the contents of the proposal/application, Benefit Illustrations were read and explained to the proposer in the language best known to him. On the basis of the information furnished in the application/proposal form, the proposal was processed by the answering opposite parties and thereafter the said policy was issued to the proposer. However, it is most respectfully submitted that before acceptance of the proposal by the answering opposite parties, adequate information with regard to the product, nature and its significance was given to the proposer. It is further averred that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands as all the policy documents delivered to the LA provided him a period of 15 days within which he could have returned the policy to answering opposite parties by stating the reason thereof. Since, the said option has not been exercised by the LA/complainant within the stipulated period of 15 days, therefore, now he cannot be allowed to wriggle out of the terms & conditions of the policy & to level false allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, all the allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. The complainant has alleged that he availed personal loan from the OP No.3 to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-. The OP No.4 allured him to avail loan facility of Rs.6,18,000/- and he fell prey to the allurement and availed the loan facility. His outstanding amount of Rs.2,76,000/- was deducted and Rs.3,42,000/- were transferred in his account on 21.04.2018. Ex.C-1 is the account statement, which show that Rs.3,42,289/- have been credited in the account of the complainant. The grudge of the complainant is that without his knowledge, the OP No.4 got issued the policy in the name of the complainant from OPs No.1 & 2. He never gave any consent for the same. He came to know about the policy on the day when he found that amount of Rs.1,04,500/- have been deducted from his account as per Ex.C-1. Perusal of Ex.C-2 shows that on 17.10.2018, he wrote a letter to the OP No.2 inquiring about the policy from the branch and from there he came to know that this is a regular premium plan, but he was never informed about this plan. In this application, he has categorically stated that he has not yet received his policy till 17.10.2018 and he wants to cancel this policy. Ex.C-3 is the reply to the application moved by the complainant, in which the OPs No.1 and 2 have expressed their inability to cancel the policy and to refund the premium amount as the free look period has already elapsed. It has been mentioned in the reply that the policy was issued on April, 26 2018, which is duly filled and signed application form and the sales illustrations sheet received from his end. It has been mentioned in this reply that the detail in the policy contract was sent to the complainant, but this document is in contradiction to the documents filed by the OPs on record. Perusal of Ex.OP-2 shows that this is a standard proposal form. Though this form is filled and the same is typed one, but it nowhere bears the signatures of the complainant nor the thumb impression of the complainant on page No.16 and 18 of the policy. So, this cannot be said that this form was duly filled and signed by the complainant as alleged by the OPs No.1 & 2 in Ex.C-3. Though, in written statement this fact has been mentioned that this was an online application form, but without the signatures and consent of the complainant, it has no value in the eyes of law as it cannot be said that the complainant has filled this form himself or not.
7. The contention of the OPs that the terms and conditions of the policy were sent to the complainant is also not tenable as there is no document on the record to show that the policy conditions were handed over and sent to the complainant. It has been alleged in the written statement that the application form was filled and policy was got issued through an agent/OPs No.3 & 4, this itself shows that the complainant was not having knowledge of the terms and conditions of the policy. The letters Ex.OP-4 and Ex.OP-5 are the information about the date of premium to be paid by the complainant. This letter is of 27.03.2019 and 26.05.2019, whereas the complainant has already informed the OPs that he is unable to pay the premium for such a long period, which he came to know on the day when the amount of Rs.1,04,500/- was deducted from his account. The allegations of the OP that the complainant himself has admitted that the policy documents were received by him, is not tenable as para No.4 of the complaint shows that when the complainant met the OP No.2, he requested them to do the needful, but they flatly refused on the pretext that ‘the complainant had signed the policy papers himself and later on the policy was supplied to the complainant and free look period had already been lapsed’. So, there is no admission on the part of the complainant that the policy documents were ever received by him rather he has explained the reasons assigned by the OP No.2 refusing to cancel his policy. More so, there is no document on the record to show that the complainant had ever signed the policy papers himself. It has been held in a case titled as “Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajwant Kaur and Other”, 2021 (3) CLT 540 (CHD) that the onus is on the appellant insurance company to prove that it provided the terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant and the same were in her knowledge. It has been held in a case titled as “National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors Vs. M/s Saraya Industries Ltd”, 2020 (1) CLT 278 (NC) that it is the duty of the insurance company to supply all the terms and conditions of an insurance policy to the policy holder-there cannot be any presumption under law on the terms and conditions. So, this clearly shows that he was never informed that he has to pay the premium for seven years as alleged nor it has been proved that the insurance policy alongwith terms and conditions were supplied to the complainant and the same were well within the knowledge of the complainant. Thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief.
8. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to refund the amount of premium of policy to the complainant by cancelling the same. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. 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 Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
04.01.2023 Member Member President
