APPEAL NO.  01 OF 2011

                                                          Date of Institution :  3.1.2011

                                                                        Date of Decision     :  22.9.2011

Amar Nath Bansal, Booth No.75, Sector 8-B, Chandigarh.

                                                         .…Appellant.

                            Vs.

1.       Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.73, First Floor, Phase-9, Mohali, through its Branch Manager.

2.       Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd, SCO No.139-140, Second Floor, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Asstt. Manager Operations.

                                                                             …. Respondents.

 BEFORE:             JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

Present:           Sh.Amar Nath Bansal, appellant in person alongwith                                   Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.

                    Sh.Paramjit Batta, Advocate for the respondents alongwith                          Sh.R.S.Kalsi, Assistant Manager (Operations), Bajaj Alliance                            Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office, Sector 34, Chandigarh.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.         This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant against the order, dated 29.11.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No.154 of 2010 vide which, it dismissed the complaint.

2.         Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the agent of the OPs approached the complainant for the Life Insurance Policy and informed him that investment of Rs.20,000/- per year would fetch Rs.1,20,000/- after the expiry of three years and that he would also get insurance cover worth Rs.1 lac for his son.  The blank form was got signed from the complainant and details of his son noted on the same. It was further stated that the complainant received the policy, but to his utter dismay, the OPs issued the policy in the name of his son. He immediately informed the agent of the OPs Mr.Amit Tyagi and asked him to either change the name or cancel the policy, but he did not agree.  Thereafter, the complainant contacted OP No.1 time and again and finally in June, 2009, OP No.1 asked him to approach OP No.2. The complainant personally visited the office of OP No.2 and gave a letter on 16.6.2009. The said letter was received by A.M.Operations of the OP, who assured him that the amount would be refunded shortly.  Thereafter, the complainant approached the OPs time and again, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.         Reply was filed by the OPs, wherein, it was stated that the policy in question was issued in the name of Som Nath Bansal and neither the complainant had hired the services of the OPs nor any policy was issued in his name and, as such, he was not a consumer.  It was further stated that the said policy was issued on the basis of proposal form duly filled in and signed by the proposer i.e. life assured (Som Nath Bansal) and as per the terms and conditions of the policy bond, he was given 15 days ‘Free Look Period’, as per the guidelines of the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA), to seek cancellation of the policy, if the terms of the policy were not acceptable to him but he failed to do so.  It was denied that the policy was issued in the wrong name.  It was further stated that the complainant had not impleaded Mr.Amit Tyagi, as a party, in the complaint, who could better explain the position and give proper reply and rebut the allegations of the complainant. It was further stated that, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, it could be surrendered only after keeping the same in force for first three years, upon which, the paid up value at the relevant time could be paid. It was further stated that as the policy stood lapsed, due to non-payment of premium w.e.f 19.10.2008 onwards, therefore, nothing could be paid to the life assured.  All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of OPs, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.         The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.         The learned District Forum, dismissed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the order.  

6.            Aggrieved by the order, passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant, filed the instant appeal.

7.         We have heard the appellant in person alongwith Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate, Sh.Paramjit Batta, Advocate for the respondent alongwith Sh.R.S.Kalsi, Assistant Manager (Operations), and have perused the record, carefully.

8.         The learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant contended that the learned District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that the reply and the affidavit alongwith annexures filed by the respondents, clearly showed their deliberate intention to mislead it. The photocopy of the proposal form was produced by the complainant alongwith the rejoinder but the learned District Forum had not given any weightage to the same. It was further contended that the learned District Forum gave an erroneous finding that the son of the complainant could have got the policy cancelled within 15 days Free Look Period, as the case of the complainant was that he paid the premium, and policy was to be issued to him and his son was to only get free insurance cover worth Rs.1 lac, as the age of the complainant crossed 60 years. However, the complainant immediately informed the OPs and their agent came and crossed the name of the son of the complainant on the document. He further submitted that the learned District Forum came to the wrong conclusion that the complainant had not produced any expert report with regard to the signatures of the son of the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant filed the rejoinder and annexed the original photograph of his son and also stated that the signatures were not of his son. It was further stated that the OPs deliberately manipulated the documents to mislead the learned District Forum.

9.         The learned Counsel for the respondents/OPs contended that the policy was issued in the name of Som Nath Bansal and not in the name of Sh.Amar Nath Bansal. It was further contended that the said policy was issued on the basis of proposal form filled and signed by the proposer i.e. Som Nath Bansal and he was given 15 days ‘Free Look Period’ to seek cancellation of the policy if the terms of the same were not acceptable to him, but he failed to exercise that option.  It was further contended that the policy stood lapsed, due to non-payment of premium w.e.f 19.10.2008 onwards and, therefore, nothing could be paid to the life assured. It was further contended that the impugned order is well reasoned.

10.       After the perusal of the record, it is apparent that the complainant failed to produce any cogent proof/evidence regarding that the OPs issued the policy, in question, wrongly in the name of his son, instead of in his name, whereas, it is apparent from the record that the said policy was issued, on the basis of proposal form R-1 was filled in and signed by the proposer i.e. Som Nath Bansal. In lieu of that, the OPs issued the first premium receipt dated 19.10.2007, C-1, in the name of Som Nath Bansal. Even the letter dated 23.10.2007 alongwith policy schedule was issued in the name of the proposer. From the record, it is evident that all these documents, were received, by the proposer, within 8 days, of filling up of the proposal form and, thereafter, if he was not satisfied with the policy then he could have cancelled the said policy within a ‘Free Look Period’ but he did not exercise that option. Therefore, this contention of the complainant that the OPs issued the policy wrongly in the name of his son (Som Nath Bansal) is not sustainable, and hence rejected.   

11.       But, at the same time, we cannot ignore the allegation levelled by the complainant that the photograph affixed on the proposal form was not of Som Nath Bansal. Therefore, vide order dated 14.9.2011, this Commission directed the complainant to produce Som Nath Bansal alongwith the certificate, showing his date of birth, as also his voter identity card and driving licence in original. On 20.9.2011 Som Nath Bansal put in appearance before this Commission and produced his original Voter Identity Card and Driving Licence, photocopies whereof were taken on record.  It is proved from the photograph annexure C-5 as well from the personal appearance of Mr. Som Nath Bansal that the photographs affixed on the abovesaid proposal form were not of Som Nath Bansal. This fact was fairly admitted by the learned Counsel for the OPs, who submitted that ,inadvertently, the photographs of somebody else were affixed on the abovesaid proposal form, but all the information recorded in the proposal form, related to Som Nath Bansal.  No doubt, the Counsel for the OPs submitted that it was an inadvertent mistake. Even if we believe the contention of the learned Counsel for the OPs that inadvertently, the photographs of somebody else were affixed on the proposal form, it could be certainly said that the OPs were negligent in performing their duties. Hence this, callous and negligent act of the OPs tentamounts to deficiency in service. Thus, the complainant is entitled to compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment.

12.       The contention of the learned Counsel for the OPs that the complainant is not a consumer, because the abovesaid policy, was in the name of his son and, as such, he did not avail of the services of the OPs, is not sustainable because he being a proposer, paid the due consideration for purchasing the policy in the name of his son. Thus, this fact cannot be denied that the complainant had hired the services of the OPs. Therefore, the order passed by the District Forum to this extent is liable to set aside. 

13.       In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is a consumer, qua the OPs and they were deficient in providing services, due to which, he suffered mental and physical harassment.  Therefore, the OPs are liable to pay compensation to the complainant, on this account.

14.            Accordingly, we partly allow the appeal, and set aside the impugned order, to the extent, as discussed above. We direct the OPs to pay to the complainant Rs.20,000/- towards compensation, alongwith litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-. The order be complied with within 30 days, from the receipt of a copy of the order, failing which the OPs shall be liable to pay the abovesaid amount with penal interest @12% p.a. from the date passing the order, till its payment.

15.            Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of cost. 

Pronounced.                                                                        

22^nd September, 2011.