BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.101 of 2014

Date of Instt. 21.03.2014

Date of Decision :02.02.2015

Joginder Kaur, aged about 62 years wife of Laxman Singh R/o Village Nawa Pind Jatta, Tehsil Nakodar District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd, Head Office:- Aviva Tower, Sector Road, DLF Phase-5, Sector-43, Gurgaon through its Managing Director.

2. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd, Branch Office, GT Road, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.Rahul Sharma Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.YV Rishi Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is an illiterate lady and she has never singed in her life. Even the passport and her other bank account are having her thumb impression only. The agent got the thumb impression on different papers and described that the scheme of the opposite party insurance company will provide 100 % return and moreover as and when the complainant wants to surrender the policy she will get the full payment alongwith interest. Under this allurement the complainant invested the amount. She purchased the policy No.ALE2996659 dated 30.06.2010 in the name of her daughter Harpreet Kaur and at that time she was minor. Due to marriageable age of her daughter, she surrendered the policy but the opposite parties has only issued a cheque of Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith interest. The complainant has invested only in the plan according to which the investor has to made payment on surrender of the policy in full alongwith interest as per explanation given by the agent. The complainant has never consented for the policy in question. The surrender value of the policy can not be by any means below the first year premium as alleged. The opposite party has illegally and with unfair trade practice has withheld the amount of Rs.1 Lac which has been paid by the complainant. The complainant has paid Rs.1,50,000/- and the opposite party has issued the cheque of Rs.50,000/- only on surrender. Moreover the application form was never signed by the complainant as she is an illiterate and she never signed and she only put the thumb impression. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to make good the loss suffered by her due to misrepresentation and selling false policy and withholding the payment to the tune of Rs.1 Lacs. She has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the complainant after fully understanding & deliberating upon the terms and conditions of the policy applied for Aviva New Life Saver Plus Policy vide proposal form No.NUP13607341 dated 26.6.2010 with a premium paying term of 20 years with an annual premium of Rs.50,000/-. On the basis of his proposal form, the opposite party issued policy bearing No.ALE2996659 to complainant commencing from 30.06.2010. The policy documents were dispatched to the complainant by the opposite party on 7.2.2010 by speed post receipt No.#EH1367479851N and was admittedly duly received by the complainant. The complainant was given 15 days free look period to reconsider his option for the said policy. The complainant did not opt for cancellation of the said policy and retained it as having opted for the said policy. The complainant only paid three annual premium for Rs.50,000/- each but thereafter she did not pay the policy premium. The complainant also did not got reinstate her policy within the stipulated period, so her policy suffered Auto Fore Closure on 1.8.2013 as per Article 5(b) of the terms and conditions of the policy. The surrender value as per terms and conditions of the said policy was paid. The complainant purchased policy No.ALE2996659 dated 30.06.2010 in the name of Harpreet Kaur and the surrender value of the policy for Rs.50,000/- has been paid to the complainant. It is wrong that complainant is an illiterate lady and has never singed in her life. It is wrong that the agent of the opposite party got the thumb impression on different papers and described that the scheme of the opposite party will provide 100% returns and that the complainant may on surrender of policy get full payment with interest. It is wrong that under such allurement the complainant invested the amount in the policy of the opposite party. It is wrong that complainant has invested only in the plan according to which the investor has to made payment on surrender of the policy in full alongwith interest. It is wrong that any such explanation was given by the representative of the opposite party to the complainant. It is wrong that the opposite party has illegally and with unfair trade practice withheld the amount of Rs.1 Lac paid by the complainant. It is wrong that the application form was never signed by complainant. It is wrong that she only put thumb impression. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of her complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavits Ex.OPA alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP7 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for both the parities.

6. Counsel for the complainant contended that complainant was represented by the agent of the opposite party insurance company that she will have to invest Rs.50,000/- annually and that the insurance plan of the opposite parties will provide 100% returns on surrender of policy and she will get full payment alongwith interest. He has further contended that the agent of the opposite party insurance company obtained thumb impression of the complainant on various documents. He further contended that the complainant is an illiterate lady and she has never signed on any document in her life and even she has put her thumb impression on her passport, copy of which is Ex.C2 on record. He further contended that the complainant never invested any amount in the plan which the opposite party insurance company is alleging. He further contended that the signature of the complainant on the proposal form produced by the opposite party insurance company are forged one. He further contended that the signature of the complainant which are in Punjabi on various documents produced by opposite party insurance company are forged one as complainant has never signed on any document and used to thumb mark and the agent of the opposite party insurance company has obtained her thumb impression on various documents. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the opposite parties that the complainant has singed in Punjabi on the proposal form and other documents after fully understanding its contents. He further contended that on the basis of proposal form and information supplied by the complainant, the policy was issued to the complainant but she never applied for cancellation of the policy within the free look period. He further contended that on surrender of the policy, the surrendered value of Rs.50,000/- has been paid through cheque to the complainant. He further contended that as per terms and conditions, she was only entitled to surrender value of Rs.50,000/- which has been paid to her. He further contended that the story set up by the complainant is an after thought one. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by learned counsels for both the parties. It is in the complaint and affidavit Ex.CW1/A of the complainant that she is an illiterate lady and has never signed in her life and even passport and her other bank account are having thumb impression and that agent of opposite party insurance company obtained her thumb impressions on different papers and described that scheme of the respondent i.e opposite party company will provide 100% return as and when she wants to surrender the policy and she will get full payment with interest. It is further in the complaint and her affidavit that she has invested only in the plan according to which she has to get payment on surrendered of the policy in full alongwith interest and she has never consented for the policy in question. According to the complainant, her signature on the proposal form Ex.OP1 and other documents produced by the opposite parties are forged one as she has never signed in her life and only used to thumb mark document. She has also produced copy of passport Ex.C2 which is having her thumb impression below her photograph and not signatures. In our opinion, the plea of forgery raised by the complainant can not be effectively decided in the present summary proceedings and appropriate Forum to decide the same in Civil Court. To decide the question of forgery elaborate evidence and inquiry including examination and cross examination of the witnesses is required. Even the evidence of handwriting expert is also required. So on the bass of documents produced by both the parties, the plea of forgery raised by the complainant can not be effectively decided in the present proceedings which are essentially summary in nature.

8. Consequently, the complainant is relegated to Civil Court for reddressal of her grievance and present complaint is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

02.02.2015 Member President