Haryana

Panchkula

CC/231/2014

GURMAIL SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AXIS BANK LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

VIKAS AGGARWAL.

04 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                         

Consumer Complaint No	:	231 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	20.11.2014
Date of Decision	:	04.06.2015

Gurmail Singh s/o Sh.Kurra Ram, R/o Village Sukhomajri, P.O., Dhamala, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula-133 302.

                                                                                                                                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1.       Axis Bank Ltd, through its Branch Manager, Ram Bagh Road, Kalka, District Panchkula.                              

2.       The Regional Manager, Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd, Max House, 3^rd Floor, 1 Dr.Jha Marg, Okhla, New Delhi-110 020.                                                                                                            ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:               Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Vikas Aggarwal, Adv., for the complainant. 

Mr.Maninder Singh, Adv., for the Op No.1.

Mr.Akhilesh Vyas, Adv., for the OP No.2.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Ops with the averments that on 27.04.2012, the complainant visited the OP No.1 for opening his saving bank account and to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- in his saving account. The employee of OP No.1 collected personal ID and passport size photographs from the complainant and got signed some forms and also received. Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant. The complainant was told to visit after one week for collecting the passbook and ATM etc. After one week, the complainant visited the OP No.1 to collect the passbook & other documents but the employee of bank-OP No.1 told that bank/Op No.1 has very good fixed deposit scheme for one year and it would give 12% interest yearly so they opened fixed deposit account with Rs.55,000/- and saving account with Rs.45,000/-. The complainant was very surprised to know that the OP No.1 opened fixed deposit account without his permission and he made a complaint with the Manager of bank that he visited the Bank for opening only saving account but the bank has opened fixed deposit account without his permission. The Manager of the Bank felt sorry and requested the complainant to withdraw his complaint as due to his complaint, the employee would be suspend from the job and the Manager put emotional pressure on the complainant. On the request of the Manager, the complainant withdrew his complaint and agreed to continue the fixed deposit account. The Manager of the Bank told the complainant that fixed deposit receipt would reach the complainant’s home by post. After a month, the complainant got a life insurance policy certificate issued by Max Life Insurance Company Ltd. vide policy No.704163583 from the Op No.2. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP No.1 for enquiry and demanded his fixed deposit receipt but Op No.1 replied that the complainant has purchased a Max Life Insurance Policy through OP No.1 from Op No.2. They also told that the complainant would have to deposit the policy amount upto next 20 years and also told that there was no fixed deposit of Rs.55,000/- lying pending with the OP No.1. The complainant told all things to the Manager of the Bank who again assured the complainant that Bank has wrongly transferred the complainant’s fixed deposit amount to Max Life Insurance account. The Manager further assured that the Op No.1 wrote a letter to Manager, Max Life Insurance, Gurgaon and expressed all the facts in the letter. The Op No.1 made a request to Op No.2 about the cancellation of policy and refund of full amount to complainant. The Manager of Bank further assured the complainant that all amount of Rs.55,000/- with interest would be credited into complainant’s saving account and the Manager took the original policy certificate from the complainant and also got some signature on the blank documents. The complainant visited the bank several times to enquire the payment but to no avail. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Op No.1 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the complainant was mature & educated person and has made the investment by his own free will without sort of any pressure, coercion or misrepresentation, knowingly well the specifications and detailed thereof. It is submitted that the Op No.1 is independent and separate legal entity, having separate infrastructure and having no concern with the Op No.2. It is submitted that the complainant had opened a saving bank account with the Op No.1 on 28.04.2012 and deposited Rs.45,000/- in his saving account. It is submitted that on 28.04.2012, the complainant has issued DD for Rs.55,000/- in favour of Max New York Life Insurance from his saving bank account bearing No.480010100033266 which was with Axis Bank Ltd., Manimajra Branch. It is submitted that the complainant had himself signed the voucher for the issuance of DD in favour of Op No.2 (Annexure R1/1). It is submitted that the complainant had made the investments with the Op No.2 on his own choice. The complainant himself admitted that he has received the policy documents in original. It is submitted that the complainant failed to place on record any correspondence with the Op No.1. It is submitted that the complainant was provided with a ‘right to consider option’ (free-look period) by the Op No.2 wherein the customer if dissatisfied with the policy terms and conditions or the benefit available under it, was entitled to bring it to the notice of the company and request for cancellation of policy under free look cancellation option, the entire premium paid by the policy holder was refunded back to him. However, after receiving the policy documents, the complainant did not exercise that option. It is also submitted that the complainant has given his residential proof and photographs for the opening of the saving account with Op No.1. It is submitted that the complainant visited Op No.1 to collect the passbook and ATM card. It is denied that the employee of bank has told the complainant that the bank has very good fixed deposit scheme for one year and it would 12% interest yearly and the bank has opened his fixed deposit account with Rs.55,000/-. It is denied that the complainant ever made a complaint to Op No.1. It is denied that the Bank Manager has felt sorry and has put emotional pressure on the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant visited the bank only for deposit of the cash in his saving bank account. It is denied that the Bank Manager told the complainant that bank had wrongly transferred the complainant’s fixed deposit amount to Max Life Insurance. It is denied that Op No.1 wrote a letter to Manager, Max Life Insurance, Gurgaon for cancellation of the policy and refund of full amount to the complainant. It is denied that the Op No.1 assured the complainant that the amount of Rs.55,000/- with interest would credited into complainant’s saving bank. It is also denied that the Manger of Op No.1 took original policy papers/certificate from the complainant and also took some signatures on the blank documents. It is submitted that the Op No.1 has no connection with the policy as the agreement has been entered between the complainant and Op No.2. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. The Op No.2 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the Insurance Policy was issued to the complainant on the basis of proposal form submitted by the insured before obtaining the insurance policy and submitted the same to the Op No.2 alongwith a signed copy of the benefit illustrations for purpose of issuance of the policy. It is submitted that as per request of the complainant, requirements and information provided in the proposal form, the insurance policy No.704163583 was rightly issued as per proposal submitted insured person, therefore, no mis-selling, misrepresentation or fraud was done against the complainant. It is submitted that if the insured was not satisfied with the insurance product, as per agreed terms and conditions of the policy and IRDA Regulations, 2002, the policy holders had an option to cancel the policy within 15 days of receipt of the policy bond. It is submitted that the original policy bond was sent to the complainant but the complainant failed to approach the Op No.2 for cancellation of the policy within free look period of 15 days from the receipt of the insurance policy. It is submitted that as per terms and condition of the policy, the insured was liable to pay annual premium but the insured person failed to pay premium after payment of one installment and as such as per terms & conditions of the policy, the insurance policy was lapsed and as such nothing is payable to the complainant. It is submitted that a declaration was also made by the complainant at the end of the proposal form that he has received, read and fully understood the product brochure and benefit illustrations of the policy. It is submitted that the promise of the insurer to indemnify the insured was subject to the terms, conditions and exceptions of the policy. It is submitted that the insured undertook to compensate the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the policy. It is submitted that the Op No.2 had sent various communications to the complainant including renewal intimation letter dated 09.06.2013, lapse intimation dated 09.06.2013 and letter informing the complainant that his ECS has bounced on 24.01.2014. It is denied that the Op No.1 ever wrote to replying the OP No.2 to cancel the policy and for refund of amount to the complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. The counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 & C-2 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure R1/A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 and Annexure R-2 and closed the evidence. Similarly, the counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered into evidence Annexure R2/1 to R2/5 and his written statement might also be read as his evidence and closed the evidence.  
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the file.
6. It is an admitted fact that on 27.04.2012, the complainant obtained an insurance policy bearing No.704163583 by paying Rs.55,000/- through DD (Annexure R1/1) from the Op No.2 through Op No.1.
7. The main grievance of the complainant is that he visited the Op No.1 for opening a saving account and deposited Rs.1,00,000/- but the Op No.1 had issued fixed deposit account for an amount of Rs.55,000/- and a saving account of Rs.45,000/- in the name of the complainant as the bank would give 12% interest yearly on fixed deposit account. After passing one month, the complainant got life insurance policy documents issued by OP No.2 and came to know that he would have to deposit the policy amount upto 20 years and there was no fixed deposit of Rs.55,000/-. The complainant contacted the Manager of the bank and told him about the policy issued by OP No.1 who assured the complainant that Bank has written a letter to Manager, Max Life Insurance, Gurgaon and requested for the cancellation of the policy and refund of full amount to the complainant. The Manager of Bank further assured the complainant that all amount of Rs.55,000/- with interest would credited into complainant’s saving account.
8. On the other hand, the Op No.1 submitted that the complainant is matured & educated person and has invested the amount by his own free will. The complainant opened a saving account of Rs.45,000/- on 28.04.2012 instead of 27.04.2012. The complainant himself issued a DD of Rs.55,000/- in favour of Op no.2 from his saving bank account which was with Axis Bank Ltd., Manimajra Branch and himself signed the DD in favour of the Op No.2. It is further submitted that the complainant was given an option of free look period wherein the customer if dissatisfied with the policy terms & conditions or benefit available under it, requested for cancellation of policy and the entire premium paid by policy holder was refunded back to him but the complainant did not make any request for cancellation of policy. It is denied that the employee of bank told the complainant that fixed deposit scheme would give 12% interest yearly.
9. The Op No.2 submitted that the Op No.2 issued the insurance policy in favour of the complainant as per his request, requirements and information provided in the proposal form and insurance policy No.704163583 was rightly issued to the complainant.  It is further submitted that if the insured was not satisfied with the insurance policy and IRDA Regulations, 2002, the policy holder had an option to cancel the policy within 15 days from the receipt of the policy documents but the complainant did not approach the Op No.2 for cancellation of the policy. It is further submitted that a declaration was also made by the complainant at the end of the proposal form after read and fully understood the benefit illustrations of the policy. The complainant has also signed the proposal form on his free will. The Op No.2 had sent various communications to the complainant including renewal intimation letter dated 09.06.2013, lapse intimation dated 09.06.2013 and letter informing the complainant that his ECS has bounced on 24.01.2014.
10. After given our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contention raised by the learned counsel for the complainant, learned counsels for the Ops and the evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. In his complaint, the complainant has stated that on 27.04.2012, he visited the Op No.1 for opening his saving bank account with Rs.1,00,000/-. The employee of the Op No.1 collected complainant’s personal ID and passport size photographs and got some signatures on different type of forms and received Rs.1,00,000/-. After one week when the complainant again visited Op No.1 to collect the pass book and other documents, the employee of the OP No.1 told that bank has very good fixed deposit scheme for one year and complainant will get 12% interest yearly. The OP No.1 opened his fixed deposit account with Rs.55,000/- and his saving bank account with Rs.45,000/- but the complainant has opened a saving account with the Op No.1 on 28.04.2012 for an amount of Rs.45,000/-. On the same day i.e. 28.04.2012, the complainant has issued one DD for Rs.55,000/- in favour of the Op No.2 from his saving bank account with Axis Bank Ltd., Manimajra Branch. The complainant himself signed the voucher (Annexure R1/1) for the issuance of DD in favour of Op No.2. In case, the complainant had not issued the DD in favour of the OP No.2, he should have taken the matter to Axis Bank, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh which has not been done but surprisingly it is neither the case of the complainant that he did not issue the DD in favour of the Op No.2 whereas as per the statement of account (Annexure R1/2), the amount has been credited from his account on 28.04.2012 which raise doubt about the genuineness of the complainant’s claim as well as story putforth by him. From the above, it proves that the complainant is concealing material facts/documents from this Forum in order to make out a case.
11. Admittedly, the complainant has received the policy documents and he has not returned the same to the Ops within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy as stipulated in the letter dated 13.09.2012 (Annexure R2/2). The clause 20 pertaining to the free look period provisions reads as under:-

“20.  Free Look Period:

The Policyholder has a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of the Policy to review the terms and conditions of the Policy and where the Policyholder disagrees to any of those terms or conditions, the Policyholder has the option to return the Policy stating the reasons for his/her objections, upon which, he/she shall be entitled to refund of an amount equal to the non-allocated Premium plus charges levied by cancellation of Units plus Fund Value as at the date of cancellation of Policy less expenses incurred on medical examination and on account of stamp duty.”

Since, the complainant himself failed to return the policy documents within above said free look period, therefore, now he cannot allege that he purchased the policy believing false averments and assurances of the Ops.

12. We find merit in the contention of the Ops. Annexure R2/1 is the proposal form duly signed by the complainant in acceptance thereof as correct. The policy in question is found to be in consonance with the said proposal form and policy was issued as proposed by him with payment mode as mentioned in the policies. Moreover, the complainant has not disputed his signature on the said proposal form.
13. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Agarwal Steel, (2010) 1 SCC 83, wherein it has been held that “In our opinion, when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted.”
14. The present is, thus, a case where each transaction averred by OP No.1 had been documented-as required in any institution in general and a banking institution in particular and the relevant documentation given to the complainant each time. However, he did not raise any objection to the contents of the documentation either at the time of receiving the documentation or immediately thereafter.
15. Inexplicably enough, the complainant did not make any grievance in that connection even during the free-look period. For him to turn around and make a grievance about the contents of documentation each time and at different duration, is not acceptable at law and we negative it.
16. In view of the foregoings and entirety of the case, we are of the opinion that the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency in service on the part of Ops, whereas the Ops have fully disproved the allegations of the complainant by leading sufficient documentary evidence. Therefore, the complaint being without any merit stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
17. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

04.06.2015                     ANITA KAPOOR                            DHARAM PAL

                                                MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

    

 

                                 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT