Delhi

East Delhi

CC/983/2012

HARBANS SINGH GULATI - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jan 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

                                                    CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

CC NO.983/2012
 

HARBANS SINGH GULATI AGED 70 YEARS OLD

R/O 89 F, POCKET-IV, MAYUR VIHAR PHASE-I,

DELHI-110091

 

 

Complainant

 

Vs

 

1. M/S. AVIVA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY INDIA LTD.

THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

2^ND FLOOR, PRAKASHDEEP BUILDING

7 TOLSTOY MARG, NEW DELHI-110001

ALSO AT:

AVIVA TOWER, SECTOR ROAD

OPP. GOLF COURSE, DLF PHASE-V

SECTOR-43, GURGAON -122003(HARYANA)

 

2. SHRI MANMEET SINGH

SR. MANAGER INDUSIND BANK

SECTOR-18, NOIDA, U.P.

 

3. SHRI ABHINEET KAPOOR

118-C, POCKET-IV

MAYUR VIHAR PHASE-I

1.  

Opposite Parties

                                                                                      Date of Admission - 04/12/2012

                                                                                    Date of Order          - 25/01/2016

SH. N. A. ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the Complainant made one time investment sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in his name and his wife Mrs. Birbala Gulati, Rs.2,00,000/- invested for three years with assurance 18%  return. The senior manager of Indusind Bank at Noida and Respondent No.3 and 2 are the Employees of the Bank. The complainant has a Saving Bank Account No. 371094 with bank. The Complainant went to bank for enquiry regarding the fixed deposit. Respondent No.2 & 3 induced them to invest this amount. Ms. Annu, an insurance agent of Respondent No.1 induced the Complainant to have an Insurance Policy in his name as well also in his wife name, on such inducement and assurance given by Respondent No.2 & 3, they issued two cheques bearing  No.136405, and 136406 on 29/01/2010 in favour of the Respondent No.1for issuance of the policy. Respondent No. 2 & 3 got the signature of the Complainant and his wife on the blank paper and forms. After few days in Feb 2010 they received two policies No.SGA 2877415 in the name of the Complainant and policy No. SGA2877994 in the name of Smt. Birbala Gulati. Both the Complainants are senior citizens, they kept the policy under the belief that after three years they will get the maturity amount. In 2012 Mr. Shiva Tripathi Relationship Manager of the Respondent No.1 visited the residence and tell them their policy got lapsed and nothing would be paid by the Respondent No.1 on maturity of the policies. The policies were issued for 20 years and the premium of Rs.2,00,000/- each was to be paid for 20 years. The Complainant received shock as he was under the belief that the policies issued are for one time investment and they got matured in 2013. Complainant contacted to Respondent No.1 & 3 but they behaved rudely. They approached customer grievance cell of the Respondent No.1, they sent documents to the Respondent vide letter dated 19/07/2012, the Respondent replied that no change is possible in the existing policies. The Respondent has cheated the Complainant. In the above circumstances they prayed for the payment of Rs.200.000/- with 24% interest and Rs.50,000/- towards the harassment, mental pain and agony and Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation.

            Respondent No.1 filed their reply wherein they have taken the plea that the complainant and his wife had applied for issuance of insurance policy namely Aviva New Safe Guard policy for the life of Ms. Bhavya Gulati granddaughter of the Complainant by proposal form No. NNU 15017212 dated 30/01/2010 and NNU 15658655 dated 20/01/2010. The representative of the Respondent have explained the key features to the Complainant and the Complainant after going through terms and condition entered in agreement with the Respondent. The policies were issued along with policy schedule, welcome letter, and right to reconsider most important terms as no option was exercised after free lock in period of 15 days. The policy lapsed in March 2011 due to nonpayment of the premium amount, the policies for 20 years and not one time investment for three years. It is not a case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.

            Both the parties have filed on record documents, affidavit in support of their respective pleas.

            Heard and perused the record.

            This is not in dispute that the Complainants are the account holders with the Indusind Bank. Their account in the bank has also not be challenged or denied. The sole question which arises of our consideration in this complaint is as to whether this policy was sold through employees of the bank. The allegation of the Complainant in this regard has not been denied by the Respondent No.2 & 3 despite service upon them. The case of the Complainant is that his signature were obtained by the two employees of the bank with Madam Annu, the insurance agent of the Respondent No.1 by giving them assurance that the policy is for one time investment and it will mature in three years and they will get assured return of 18% to 20% interest and on this assurance they invested the amount in the policy in question. Annexure G on record was delivered to the Respondent on 19/04/2012 where in it has been specifically written that Sh.Gulati has retired and 75 years old, not keeping good health and his wife has no source of income. This letter has been relied upon by the Respondent and there is no denial of this fact that Sh. Gulati is 1942 born. His age in 2012 will be around 70 years. A person of 70 years of age and having only resources of pension will ever purchase the policy for 20 years. The average life expectancy as on today is between 65 to 70 years. This lent support to the contention of the Complainant that their signature was obtained by Ms. Annu Bhardwaj in connivance with Respondent No. 2 & 3 the employees of the bank. It not been controverted on oath from the side of the Respondent that the proposal form were not filled by the Complainant in their own handwriting. In these circumstances it is established that the representative of the Respondent No.1 obtained the signature on the blank forms and got issued the policy for 20 years. The the complainant was only inclined to have a policy for 3 years by making one time investment. In these circumstances the plea of binding contract taken by the Respondent for 20 years cannot be accepted. An agreement or contract which is based on fraud and misrepresentation is not binding upon the Complainant. The circumstances appearing on record clearly suggest that the Complainant were sold this policy by the representative of the Respondent No.1 in connivance of the Respondent No.2 & 3 by indulging into unfair trade practice. This has been noted by this Forum so many times that employees of the bank in connivance with insurance companies are actively involved and facilitating the unfair trade practiced. The elderly peoples are the soft target, the bank officials having excess to their account lend their hand to befool the innocent customers of the bank to be exploited by the representatives of the Respondent Company.

            We allow this complaint. We direct the Respondent No.1 to refund to the Complainant the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with 9% interest thereon from the date of the deposit till it is finally paid. The Respondent shall also pay to the Complainant Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony, harassment, and towards the cost of litigation.

Copy of this order be provided to both the parties.

 

 

(DR.P.N.TIWARI)                        (POONAM MALHOTRA)                                (N.A.ZAIDI)                                                                                                                                                    MEMBER                                       MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT