BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

      Complaint No.182 of 2020

      Date of Instt. 01.07.2020

      Date of Decision: 24.09.2024

Renu Malhotra aged about 59 years wife of Suman Malhotra, resident of House No.144, Tower Enclave, Phase-3, Opposite TV Tower, Nakodar Road, Khurla Kingra, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Axis Bank Limited, Ground Floor Nakodar Road, Wadala       Chowk, Jalandhar through its Manager.

2.       Axis Bank Limited, Office address Bombay Dyeing Mills        Compound, Pandurang Budha Marg, Worli, Mumbai through its     Chairman/Director.

3.       Max Life Insurance Company Limited Registered Office at Near        Narinder Cinema, Near Bus Stand, Jalandhar, through its        Manager.

4.       Max Life Insurance Company Limited Head Office at Plot No. 90-A, Sector 18, Gurugram, Haryana through its        Chairman/Director.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)

Present:       Sh. Nitin Gupta, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.

                   Sh. Sukrant Sharma, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.

                   Sh. Nitish Arora, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.3 and 4.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant having the account with the OP No.1 and are prestige customer of the OP No.1. The O.P No.1 approached the complainant for making the FDR from the account of the complainant being a prestige customer and having a sufficient balance of more than Rs.3 Lacs. The complainant having good terms with the OP No.1 and agreed to effect/made the FDR from the OP No.1 from her account for a sum of Rs.3 Lacs. The employee of OP No.1 came to the house of the complainant and taken the signatures on some documents to get the FDR initiated in the name of the complainant being a old lady. The complainant signed the papers in the month of February 2020 in good faith. After obtaining the signature of the complainant, the OP No.1 mislead the complainant for not doing the FDR and same the amount invest in the OP No.3. After few days when the complainant received the message from the OP No.3 & 4 for issuance of the insurance in the name of the complainant then the complainant was in shocked that the payment was given to the bank in good faith for doing the FDR, but for not making the insurance policy. The messages regarding the processing of the policy was send by the OP No.3 on the mobile number of the complainant from 20-02-2020. Immediately, the complainant contacted the OP No.1 for the matter in question. The OP No.1 gave satisfaction to the complainant that the interest in the policy is higher than the FDR, but the complainant refused to get the same. The complainant urged the OP No.1 to make the FDR of Rs.3 Lacs instead of life insurance policy. The OP No.1 assured the complainant that if the complainant is not satisfied with the policy then they make the FDR in the name of the complainant, the complainant forcibly urges to make the FDR instead of insurance policy. The OP No.1 assured the complainant that policy is surrendered before the OP No.3 after receiving the same within ten days from receipt of the policy with reimbursement of full amount of Rs.3 Lacs. The complainant received the policy bearing No.601266273 on 17.03.2020 by registered post and same be applied for cancellation on 19-03-2020 with OP No.3. The OP No.3 assured the complainant that full amount will be credited to the account of the complainant within ten days from the date of submission. After that on 30.04.2020, the OP No.3 credited the amount of Rs.2,47,630.53/- in the account of the complainant and Rs.52,369.47/- has deducted by the OP No.3 for the charges. The complainant approached OP No.1 as well as OP No.3 for deducting the huge amount but, all in vain. The OP No.1 in connivance with OP No.3 grab the money of the complainant. The act and conduct of the OPs tantamount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service 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 Rs.52,369.47/- alongwith interest. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.12,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OPs No.1 and 2 appeared through its counsel and filed written statement whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as the same is knowingly false and purposely vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. It is further averred that the complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands. It is further averred that the present complaint has been filed not in accordance with amended Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date, hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complainant has no cause of action against the OP No.1 to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is having account with their bank, but the other 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.                OPs No.3 & 4 filed their separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the answering OPs have correctly refunded the due amount in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant had showed her interest to take the Life Insurance Policy, thus signed duly filled proposal form covering proposer Renu Malhotra & Insured Abhishek after understanding the terms and conditions of the policy which were explained fully by the officials of the OP No.1. It is further averred that the no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant to file the present complaint and the OP has acted strictly on the basis of the terms and conditions contained in the policy. The complaint has been filed by the complainant with the malafide intention, and further to grab the public money. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complainant has approached the Forum with unclean hands by not disclosing material facts. The complaint is false, frivolous, and vexatious in nature and has been filed with the sole intention of harassing the OPs. It is further averred that the complainant has no locus-standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, the factum with regard to issuance of the insurance policy to the complainant is admitted, but the other 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.

4.                Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

5.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by the complainant as well as OPs No.3 & 4 very minutely.

7.                The complainant has alleged the misleading conduct of the OPs No.1 and 2 towards the complainant while utilizing the amount of the complainant to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- lying in the bank of the OPs No.1 and 2. It is alleged that she never approached for issuance of insurance policy, but the same was wrongly issued by the OP. On receiving the message of insurance policy, she opted for cancellation of the same and sought refund of the money. She received Rs.2,47,000/- as a refund instead of Rs.3,00,000/- and she has challenged the deduction of Rs.53,000/- as illegal and wrong and alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by OP.

8.                The OPs No.3 & 4 have submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not consumer. The
OPs No.3 and 4 have denied all the allegations of connivance with the OPs No.1 and 2. The counsel for the OPs No.3 and 4 has submitted that where the investment is made in the share market, it does not fall under Consumer Protection Act. The counsel has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, in Revision Petition No.658 of 2012, titled as ‘Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and another’.

9.                The OPs No.1 and 2 have admitted that the complainant is having account with their bank. The OPs No.1 and 2 have alleged that the complainant herself had asked the OPs No.1 and 2 for investment plans which may be beneficial for the complainant. It has been alleged that she was clearly told about the losses and benefits of various plans and she herself with her own consent has invested the amount in the insurance policy.

10.              Ex.C-1 is the passbook of the complainant with the OPs No.1 and 2 bank. She received the messages from OPs No.3 and 4 and acknowledgement has been proved by her Ex.C-3. The insurance policy has been proved by the OPs Ex.OP-2. Perusal of the policy Ex.OP-2 shows that the policy was for five years and the premium payment term was also five years and the maturity date was 09.03.2030. The premium amount was Rs.3,00,000/-. Maturity amount was fund value as on maturity date and it has been mentioned in Ex.OP-2 that funds invested in regular growth super fund. This clearly shows that this amount was invested by the complainant in the mutual funds and there is no doubt that this is a speculative game as clearly mentioned in the policy Ex.OP-2. Though the complainant has written a letter for the cancellation of the policy as she could cancel the policy within 15 days from the receipt of policy and the same was done by the complainant. She received the amount of Rs.2,47,000/-. There are conditions in the policy for the cancellation and the charges were to be deducted at the time of cancellation as applicable as per the terms and conditions of the policy. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, in a case titled as ‘Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and another’ that ‘Policy having been taken for investment of premium amount in share market which is for speculative gain, complainant not falls within scope of Consumer Protection Act, 1986-complaint not sustainable’. It has further been held that the policies which are purchased for the investment in an unit linked policy are speculative in nature and the same are taken for the investment purposes, as such, the policy holders of such policies are not consumers and the disputes relating to such matter are not sustainable before the Consumer Forum. As per the law laid down by the by the Hon'ble National Commission, the funds were invested in regular growth super fund. Thus, the complainant does not come within the preview of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11.              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     

24.09.2024         Member                          Member           President