PER SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

              Succinctly put, the agent of the OPs approached the complainant and informed him that investment of Rs.20,000/- per year would fetch Rs.1,20,000/- after expiry of three years and that he would also get insurance cover worth Rs.1,00,000/- for his son.  Upon this, he signed the blank form and gave details of his son on blank paper.  However, surprisingly the OPs issued the policy in the name of his son.  He immediately informed the agent of the OPs and asked him to either change the name or cancel the policy but he did not agree.  Thereafter, he contacted the OP-1 and on 16.6.2009 he visited the OP-2 and gave letter on 16.6.2009 who assured him that the amount would be refunded shortly.  Thereafter, he approached the OPs time and again but to no avail.  Hence this complaint.

2.             The OPs in their written reply by way of affidavit of Ms. Priyanka Gupta, Asstt. Manager (Operations) submitted that the policy in question was issued in the name of Som Nath Bansal and neither any policy was issued in the name of the complainant nor any services were hired by him, therefore, he could not sue the OPs.  It has been stated that the 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 thereof were not acceptable to him, but he failed to exercise that option.  It has been vehemently denied that the policy was issued in the wrong name.  It has been submitted that as per terms and conditions of the policy, the policy could be surrendered only after keeping the same in force for first three years upon which the paid up value at the relevant time would be paid. However, as the policy in question stood lapsed due to non payment of premium w.e.f 19.10.08 onwards, therefore, nothing could be paid to the life assured.  Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

4.             The main contention of the complainant is that instead of issuing the insurance policy in his name, the OPs issued the policy in the name of his son Som Nath Bansal, whereafter he visited the OP-2 and gave letter Annexure C-3 on 16.6.2009 who assured him that the amount would be refunded shortly but to no avail.  On the other hand the OPs while referring the Proposal Form Annexure now marked as R-1, contended that that the policy in question was issued in the name of Som Nath Bansal and neither any policy was issued in the name of the complainant nor any services were hired by him, therefore, he could not sue them because as per Annexure R-1, the policy was to be issued in the name of Som Nath Bansal, who has signed in the column of the proposed insured i.e. Som Nath Bansal and also, the policy could not be processed further as there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy by the insured and it lapsed. 

5.             We have gone through the records very carefully and find that since the date of inception of the policy i.e. the proposal form Annexure R-1 has been signed by the son of the complainant, on 16.10.2007, whereafter the first premium receipt Annexure C-1 dated 19.10.2007 was also issued by the OPs in the name of Mr. Somnath Bansal i.e. the son of the complainant. The letter Annexure C-1(page 9) and the policy schedule Annexure C-1(page 10) dated 23.10.2007 was also issued in the name of Mr. Somnath Bansal and has been placed on record by the complainant himself.  The initial unit statement Annexure C-1 (page 11 and page 12) was also issued in the name of Mr. Somnath Bansal. It is pertinent to mention here that all these records/letters were received by the complainant/son of the complainant within 08 days of filling up of the proposal form, and thereafter, if the son of the complainant/complainant was not satisfied with the policy, the son of the complainant was having an opportunity of 15 days ‘Free Look Period’ to seek cancellation of the said policy but he failed to exercise that option. The complainant has not been able prove that after receiving the above said correspondence related to the policy in question (which he claims to have been issued wrong by the OPs); he/his son ever contacted the OPs through any means before 15.06.2009, with regard to his grievance of issuance of the policy, wrongly in the name of his son. Mere placing on record letter Annexure C-2 dated 12.06.2008, which nowhere shows that it has been received by the OPs, is of no use in the present complaint.  Otherwise also, Annexure C-2 was written after more than 7 months of the inception of the policy in question that is after a long period of opportunity of Free Look Period.

6.             In our view, the policy in question was issued in the name of Som Nath Bansal. It has nowhere been proved by the complainant that the policy was to be issued in his name. Therefore when no services were hired by him from the OPs, he could not sue the OPs in the present complaint. The complainant by way of rejoinder has produced the photocopy of the last page of the proposal form and Photograph of his son Som Nath Bansal, now marked Annexure C-6(colly.), to prove that the OPs have deliberately not got the bottom of the last page photocopied as the same bears the signatures of the complainant as policy holder, the signatures of his son is forged on the proposal form and also the photograph on the proposal form is not of his son.  In our view to prove the forge signature or other facts on the proposal form, the complainant was required to produce the expert/specialist report against it, but it is not produced by the complainant, hence, Annexure C-6 is also of no use for the complainant in the present complaint.

7.             Admittedly, as per terms and conditions of the policy, the policy could be surrendered only after keeping the same in force for first three years upon which the paid up value at the relevant time would be paid, but in the present complaint as is evident from the records, only Rs.20,000/- was paid by the insured and thereafter no payment was made by the insured to the OPs, whereafter in our view, as per the terms and conditions of the policy in question,  the OPs were justified in their action and the policy in question stood lapsed due to non payment of premium w.e.f. 19.10.08 onwards and nothing could be paid to the life assured. 

8.             In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove that the policy in question was wrongly issued in the name of his son instead of, in his name, by the OPs. There is no merit in the present complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.