Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted thatcomplainant with a view to secure his life as well as his family was in search of a good insurance policy which will be more profitable as well as transparent in its terms and policy and at that material point of time in the month of first part of October 2013 one agent or advisor of the ops contacted with this complainant and stated that op/insurance company is most reliable insurance sector in the insurance arena and its short terms insurance policy is one of the finest opportunity to gain benefit smoothly without any tension and accordingly being convinced by the representative of the ops’ advisor Mr. Rajatava Dutta, complainant agreed to take policy and asked him to select a policy which will be for a short term policy and at that relevant point of time the said advisor of the ops offered one policy i.e. Bajaj Cash Gain Economy for 3 years term from the date of commencement of the policy and it was assured that complainant may withdraw the amount invested along with all payable interest and other benefits accumulated after 3 years and being assured by the said ops’ agent or advisor, complainant agreed to take the policy and accordingly paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and the advisor of the ops’ stated that the policy in question will come by post within a few days.

          After few days complainant received the said policy in question being No. 0307649807 having commencement date of the policy as on 07.11.2013 but when complainant went through the policy document in question he became astonished that the policy in question is not at all short term policy and not only that commitment made by the advisor is totally false and fabricated.  Accordingly complainant after realizing the policy term sent a letter to the op on 14.11.2013 and requested him to do the needful for withdrawing the amount which was not as per assurance of the advisor and for taking necessary step to convert it for 3 years.

          Thereafter again complainant sent letter but when no reply was received for return of the said deposited amount on 26.12.2013 to the op no.1 and at the material point of time op sent a reply stating that there is no discrepancy in policy knowing all the facts that this complainant purchased the same and no cancellation was made within the free look period and after receipt of that complainant was confirmed that their agent or advisor misled the same by stating false terms and conditions and such sort of act on the part of op is no doubt unfair trade practice and for which complainant has prayed for directing the op to return the same.

          On the other hand op by filing written statement submitted that the policy was issued based on duly filled and signed proposal form which is just and legal and further complainant has failed to make out any cause of action against op nos. 1 & 2 and it is further submitted if the insurance agent violates any code of conduct prescribed by the IRDA or commits any fraud in his transactions, it is the insurance agent who alone shall be held liable and responsible for his acts of omission or commission because the insurance agent is an independent insurance intermediary and further submitted that complainant admitted that he signed in the said proposal form and he intended to purchase a policy.

          So, there is no ground to consider this complaint in view of the fact that complainant’s entire allegation is false and fabricated more over within free look period of 15 days cancellation was not made.  So, question of refunding premium or payment of compensation, interest, costs does not arise and the present complaint is vexatious and for which the present complaint should be dismissed.

Decision with reasons

          On careful consideration of the entire materials on record including the complaint, written version and further considering the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties, it is found that no doubt the complainant purchased a policy and truth is that complainant completely relied upon the Sales Manager or Advisor of the op who has not changed the status of the said advisor under op.  But op’s version is that agent or consultant/advisor or the any sales manager if acts beyond the terms and conditions of the policy and rules of the policy in that case it is the liability of the said person.  But op has not denied that the said fellow is not related with the op.  So, it is clear that op’s absence is completely run by their agent Sales Manager, Consultant Advisor.

          It is also truth that complainant did not appear before the office of the op by placing the filled up application form for purchase of the policy but everything was done by the said agent of the op.  Fact remains that just after receipt of the said policy on 07.11.2013 and after going through the said documents and assertion forthwith he wrote a letter to the op which was received by A. Chatterjee Sales Manager (Junior) of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance and against that letter there was no response on the part of the op and at the same time op has not denied the status of A. Chatterjee Sales Manager (Junior) of the op.

          So, considering that letter it is clear that complainant specifically mentioned that he intended to purchase a short term policy and op’s agent assured it and received signature on application form and also received a cheque of Rs. 50,000/-.  But when he received the said document on 07.11.2013 on proper study it was found that it is for long term for 15 years, so, forthwith he reported the matter to the insurance authority in writing and Sales Manager A. Chtterjee on behalf of the life insurance companies received the same letter and this letter is sufficient to prove that within free look period, he brought his grievance and reported to the op authority to take such step to make it a 3 years policy and permit him to withdraw the same within 3 years that means he had no intention to purchase the policy for a long period.

          But peculiar factor is that op authority Sales Manager Junior A. Chatterjee received it but against that no action was taken that means complainant had no intention to purchase any long term policy and for payment of Rs. 50,000/- per month for 15 years and as because it was not within his capacity he relied upon the agent of the op and invariably op’s agent misrepresented the fact and somehow collected the signature of complainant and also collected one cheque and that was presented by the agent of the op and op completed it as 15 years policy.  There was no face to face discussion in between the op’s authority and the complainant at the time of accepting the said application.  At the same time it is proved that the entire application form for the policy was filled up by the ops own agent and other and that is common practice of the private insurance companies even Government Insurance Co. also.

          So, considering that document (the letter of complainant) it is clear that then and there it was the duty of the op to cancel the document reporting that there was no such policy for 3 years.  But it has become a practice of all the private insurance companies in India to deceive the customer in such a manner only to grab the money in such a manner knowing full well that such a person (consumer) shall not be able to continue it.  So, considering that letter dated 14.07.2011 we are confirmed that within the free look period complainant brought allegation but op did not attend and did not respond on the ground that they are waiting for the expiry of the free look period and to keep letter without considering the whole expression of the consumer, the complainant and it is common practice of the private insurance company not to consider such sort of grievance of the consumer/customer which are filed within free look period.  But op has tried to say that actually prayer for cancellation was made by complainant only on 05.02.2014 and it was after free look period.  But even an idiot shall be satisfied that the complainant made his grievance about the long term policy against short term policy for 3 years what the agent or the advisor of the op’s company assured to the complainant.

          Then it is clear that complainant made all allegations regarding about misselling within free look period.  Then it was the responsibility on the part of the op to satisfy the complainant in this regard or to refund the entire amount and that is called corporate social responsibility which is not in the domain of the private insurance company of India.  It is fact that the Forum or any Forum is not aware of the theorization of corporate law and responsibility.  At the same time it is to be mentioned that it is a government policy and the Finance Department policy that customer can opt for any policy and he has his right to switch over or to get return of the said amount and that policy is also not adopted by the op.  Practically we are not aware of the consumer economy.  We have never gone through corporate social responsibility, we have not gone through the theory of satisficing which was enunciated by Nobel Laureto, Arthur Simon not but even thencasually passing this order.  In this case mis selling is proved when allegation is brought forthwith within 15 days of free look period.  Then it was the duty of the op to forthwith inform the complainant that it is being returned because there is no such short term policy or complainant may switch over.  But the policy was issued by the opand his agent back behind the knowledge of the complainant and practically complainant being satisfied by the advisor of the op issued cheque and signed in the blank form.  If those forms and terms would be for 15 year in that case complainant invariably shall not have to purchase the policy which have been issued by the op that is proved from the fact that complainant just after receipt of the policy on 07.11.2013 reported the matter to the op and op kept silent.  Mere wording cancellation is not sufficient.  The whole body contain of letter simply speaks that complainant did not intend to purchase any long term policy but he intended to purchase a 3 years term policy and the advisor/agent of the op assured it and complainant simply issued a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- and supplied all other papers.  Complainant did not appear before the op for presentation the said Forum and document.

          Then it is clear that all the advisors as well as managers of the op are dishonest and they are misleading customer which is proved in this case.  Dishonest practice and trade has been adopted by Bajaj Allianz, Royal Sundaram, ChoalMandalam, HDFC and some other private insurance companies by spreading dishonest agent as well as manager, advisor, consultant etc.  Nowadays in West Bengal situation is beyond control.  Middle class family members are being deceived daily but Forum found blind to give relief to such customers or consumers.  Though Forum has also a social responsibility to defend the consumers who are being deceived by the cheat traders/service provider who have adopted unfair trade practice and also unmerchantable practice to sell such sort of product like insurance policies or other type of fixed deposit, bank loan, etc.

          In the present case we are convinced to hold that misselling was done by the agent of the op and in the present case the present Insurance company shall not be able to run their business without their so called dishonest sales manager, agent or insurance consultant who have been appointed by them to capture the market and practically op’s own men that the agents and consultants misled the complainant giving no chance to the complainant that the said application form for policy shall be completed as a policy for 15 years.  So, it is proved that one type of malpractice was practiced by the agent, sales manager and consultant of the op company and for which complainant was deceived by the ops and the present sale of policy was not within the knowledge of the complainant if the ops is honest business man in the field of insurance product invariably it was their duty to call those parties before them and to talk face to face and another factor is that in the said application form in the heading the term period for policy is not noted but it is mandatory because IRDA has already mentioned that the period of policy shall be mentioned in the head of the policy so that period can be realized what type of policy he agrees to purchase and in the present policy there is no such printing note.  So, it is clear that complainant was deceived by the men of the op and complainant issued cheque for Rs. 50,000/- for 3 years policy but it is converted as 15 years policy and it was not within the knowledge of the complainant and for that reason we are convinced to hold that complainant’s letter dated 14.11.2013 is no doubt a report to that effect that misselling was done.  So, invariably the op company ought to have forthwith replied against that letter but malpractice has been continued all over India by the insurance company as because there is no control.  So, people are being deceived and in the present case complainant has been deceived by the op and their men which is proved.

          So, we are convinced to hold that within free look period complainant raised objection and that tantamounts the prayer for cancellation of the 15 years policy when he prayed for 3 years and also stated about the malpractice of their agent and in view of the above findings we are convinced to hold that very recently Nobel Laureto has observed in respect of the banking service that effective step should be taken against banks and also insurance company so that money cannot be misused through brokers or agents etc. at the time of purchasing such policy and the purchaser must be informed all information in writing in his or their language so that buying before the insurance policy purchaser shall be satisfied what he wants to or intends to purchase.  But the insurance company(private public)have their no social responsibility in this regard. If the forms are printed in Bengali along with head of the form in that case complainant must not have to purchase it and at the same time agent or sales manager appointed by the insurance company shall not be able to missell such sort of fraud policy of the op to the complainant.

          After thoughtful consideration of the entire fact we have gathered that it is completely proved that it was done by the agent and sales manager of op who has not denied that matter or relationship with them.

          In the result the complaint succeeds when allegation against the op is well proved beyond any manner of doubt when it is not a single case, when many cases are pending, invariably such a poor customer must not be deprived to get relief.  Consumer Forum is here and there to protect the interest of customer, Consumer Forum is not a bureaucrat institution.  All over the world customer service consumer economy and consumer organization have repeatedly pointed out that bank or in insurance company cannot sell any product without satisfaction of the consumer and if consumer is dissatisfied that deposited at premature stage shall be returned after deducting 5percent as service charge.  But Insurance company cannot grab the entire amount.  But nowadays all the private insurance companies are not in a mood to give proper protection to the consumers.  But they are in a mood to collect premium any how because they are more careful of that fact if those people are not willing to continue, the deposited amount shall be forfeited.  The business policy of the private insurance companies are of such a nature to exploit the customers.  But ConsumerProtection Act is here and there and it must be properly implemented and but our bureaucratic attitude has failed to implement the C.P. Act in its true sense.

          In the light of the above observation we are convinced to hold that complainant rightly informed within free look period and that was not entertained by the op only to grab that amount.  But only op is allegedly bound to refundRs. 50,000/- after deducting 5percent of the as service charge treating it as cancelled and op shall have to pay the same along with such interest bank interest from the date of receipt of the said money and till its full payment and also shall have to pay cost because complainant was thrown to the Consumer Forum by the authority of the op even if they have their social responsibility to decide it finally to give redress when within free look period complainant reported about misspelling and his grievance.

          In the result, the complaint succeeds.

          Hence, it is

ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 5,000/- against all the ops.

          Ops jointly and severally are directed to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 50,000/- after deducting 5percent and over the said amount ops are jointly and severally shall have to pay 6percent interest per annum since the date of enjoyment of the said amount by the op and till its full satisfaction and same shall be paid within 15 days from the date of this order failing which for each day’s delay, ops jointly and severally shall have to pay punitive damages  at the rate  Rs. 200/- per day as penal interest and till full satisfaction of the decree and the order of this Forum and if it is collected same shall be deposited to this Forum’s account by the op jointly and severally and even if ops are reluctant to comply the order in that case the penal proceeding u/s 27 of C.P. Act shall be started for which further penalty and fine may be imposed.