BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Gurdev Singh son of Sh.Ram Asra r/o Village Chotti Karoran, Near Naya Goan, District Mohali(Pb.).

…..Complainant[s]

                                V E R S U S

1]     Bajaj Allianz Life Ins. Co. Ltd., through its Managing Director, Regd. & H.O. GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411006.

2]     Bajaj Allianz Life Ins. Co. Ltd., through its General Manager, SCO 139-140,Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

                                        ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                                PRESIDENT

                SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                  MEMBER

DR.(MRS.) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA    MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Dinesh K.Badhwar, Counsel for complainant

                   Sh.Varun Chawla, Advocate for OPs.            

PER DR.(MRS.) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA,  MEMBER

              This complaint was earlier dismissed vide order dated 07^th Sept., 2011, by this Forum.  Aggrieved against the said order, complainant went in Appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission. The Hon’ble State Commission, vide its order dated 05.03.2012, accepted the Appeal by setting aside the impugned order and remanded back this case for fresh decision, after deciding the application dated 23.2.2011, filed by the complainant directing the OPs for production of the terms & conditions of the Policy and the Proposal form allegedly signed by Gurbhajan Singh, taking into consideration the affidavit of Gurbhajan Singh placed by the complainant, on record and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Counsel for the parties.

2]           In view of the said order of Hon’ble State Commission, the application dated 23.2.2011 was decided vide order dated 19.4.2012.

3]           Precisely put, the complainant took insurance policy namely Bajaj Allianz New Secure First Gold bearing No.0025707557 by paying Rs.75000/- to OP-2 on 28.08.2006. The premium of Rs.75000/- was payable annually.  According to the complainant, the agent of the OP-Company took the premium of Rs.75000/- for the year 2007 from his father, but instead of adjusting the same amount towards the premium of the policy, the OPs issued another policy in the name of his brother namely Sh.Gurbhajan Singh without his consent and desire. It is averred that on coming to know about the same in the year 2008, the complainant made a written representation to the OP-2 to transfer Rs.75000/- from the account of his brother to his account, but to no effect. The complainant alleged that the OP No.1 directed him to pay the second and third installment against the policy in question. The complainant has pleaded that the OPs failed to redress his grievance despite service of legal notice dated 13.04.2010 which amounts to deficiency in service, hence this complaint.

4]           OPs filed written statement wherein the factum of issuance of the policy in question has been admitted. The main defence of the OP is that due to the non-payment of due premium by the complainant even after the grace period of 30 days as well as his failure to revive the policy within revival period, the policy in question had been lapsed.  Therefore, a cheque for Rs.14,509/-, as per (Articles 6.1(c) and Article 12(a)) the terms & conditions of the policy was sent to the complainant against the said policy.  It is submitted that if the complainant had paid the premium, as alleged by him to some person/agent, it was his duty to confirm /verify the deposit towards the policy in question. It is again submitted that Sh.Gurbhajan Singh, brother of the complainant, had obtained the policy by paying premium of Rs.75,000/- in the year 2007.  Rest of the allegations have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5]           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6]           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

7]           The facts of the case are that the complainant took insurance policy No.0025707557 by paying Rs.75000/- from OP-2 on 28.08.2006. It is the allegation of the complainant that the agent of the OP-Company received a sum of Rs.75000/- in the year 2007 from his father towards the second premium of his policy, but the OPs instead issued another policy that too in the name of his brother, namely, Sh.Gurbhajan Singh, without the consent & desire of the insured. The complainant made a written representation to the OP-2 to transfer Rs.75000/- from the account of his brother to his account, but all in vain.

8]           On the contrary, the OPs in their written statement had pleaded that the policy obtained by the complainant was lapsed due to non-payment of due premiums and as such a cheque of Rs.14,509/- against the said policy, was sent to the complainant as per Article 6.1(c) and 12(a) of the terms & conditions of the said policy.  It is also contended that Sh.Gurbhajan Singh, brother of the complainant, had obtained the policy by paying a premium of Rs.75,000/- in the year 2007 and the complainant did not pay any premium against his policy in the year 2007 onwards.  

9]           After going through the documents, placed on file by both the parties as well as considering the whole facts & circumstances giving rise to the present complaint, in order to clinch the matter and to reach to the just conclusion; it has been made out that the question which needs to be determined is as to whether the OPs had issued another policy in the name of Sh.Gurbhajan Singh, brother of the complainant, without his consent & desire, as alleged, with the amount of Rs.75,000/-, which was actually paid by the complainant towards the second premium of his Policy NO.0025707557.

10]         In order to establish this fact, the ld.Counsel for the OPs, vide order dated 19.5.2012, was directed to produce on record the Duplicate Insurance Policy Document bearing No.007425174 in the name of Gurbhajan Singh and also to produce on record the Terms & Conditions of the said Policy along with the Proposal Form (in Original) allegedly signed by Sh.Gurbhajan Singh, as has been contended by the ld.Counsel for OPs.   

11]         However, the directions of the Forum, was not adhered to in totality.  Instead, the ld.Counsel for the OPs has placed on record only the Policy Schedule of Policy NO.0074251724 in the name of Gurbhajan Singh.  The ld.Counsel for the OPs instead showed his inability to produce on record the Terms & Conditions of the Policy and the Original Proposal Form allegedly signed by Sh.Gurbhajan Singh.  Henceforth, in order to establish/prove the alleged version in their favour, the OPs should have placed on record the Original Proposal Form allegedly filled & signed by Gurbhajan Singh and the Terms & Conditions of the Policy, so that the actual & factual position would become apparent with certainty that the alleged Policy No.0074251724 was issued in favour of Gurbhajan Singh, in pursuance to the proposal form filled & signed by Gurbhajan Singh, with his consent & desire. 

12]         As the OPs themselves failed to prove their contention by placing on record the required documents, inspite of the order, therefore, it clearly indicates & proves that the OPs have illegally, unilaterally & arbitrarily issued Policy No.0074251724 in the name of Gurbhajan Singh, brother of the complainant, with the amount of Rs.75,000/- so received by them from the complainant, which was actually paid by him towards the second premium installment of his Policy NO.0025707557.  

13]         Furthermore, the versions of the OPs have been nullified & controverted by the affidavit of Sh.Gurbhajan Singh, which throw ample light on the issue in dispute that neither he opted for the purchase of alleged policy NO.007425174 nor signed any document, nor received any original bond along with terms & conditions as well as the copy of the proposal form.  The relevant portion of said affidavit reads as under:-

“1.   That the deponent never intended/opted for the purchase of alleged said policy No.007425174 nor signed nay documents and never received any original bond along with terms and conditions as well as the copy of the proposal form which are necessary for taking a policy and has never instructed the opposite parties for the issuance of any policy in his name.

2.    That the deponent never deposited a sum of Rs.75,000/- in his name vide receipt bearing no.0105793987 dated 6/11/2007 which is Ex.C-3 with complaint. 

14]         The act & conduct of the OP Insurance Company in not producing the main crucial documents i.e. original proposal form allegedly signed by Sh.Gurbhajan Singh as well as the terms & conditions of the said policy supplied to him, clearly proves their indulgence into an unfair trade practice, by issuing a policy to a person, who never opted for the same and thereby misused the hard earned money of the complainant to the tune of Rs.75,000/- paid by him towards the second premium of his policy, consequently, the policy purchased by the complainant also lapsed.   

15]         Besides this, the OPs further remained deficient by not adjusting the amount of Rs.75,000/- against the policy of the complainant as premium for the second year i.e. for 2007. They rather issued another policy in the name of another person i.e. Gurbhajan Singh, that too without taking his consent, without filling proposal form and without supplying terms & conditions thereof. We, therefore, opine that the OPs by doing such an illegal, arbitrarily act, have not only remained grossly deficient in providing proper services to the complainant, but also indulged into adopting unfair trade practice, which caused monetary loss as well as mental & physical harassment to the complainant.  It would not be out of place to state that the Court can take judicial notice with regard to such deficiency/unfair trade practice.

16]         In the present case, considering the facts in detail as well as the proven deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP Insurance Policy; we are of the view that the compensation is to be awarded not only on the basis of principle applicable on Tort, but on the basis of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act and interpretation thereof, which confers jurisdiction to award damages for any loss or injury suffered. Injury would include mental agony and torture.

17]         In the case of Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M. K. Gupta, III(1993) CPJ 7(SC)=AIR 1994 SC 787, the court observed that the word compensation used in Section 14 is very wide connotation and has not been defined under the Act and held that “in legal sense it may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss.

18]         While dealing with such contention in Charan Singh Vs. Healing Touch Hospital and Others, (2007) 7 SCC 668, the Court observed that the Consumer Forums are required to make an attempt to serve the ends of justice so that compensation is awarded in an established case, which not only serve the purpose of recompensing the individual, but also at the same time aims to bring about the qualitative change in the attitude of service providers.

19]         Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind as well as the facts & circumstances in entirety, of the present case and the evidence/ documents placed on record by both the parties, the facts speak the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practices adopted by the OPs.  Thus, the complaint, having lot of merit, weight and substances, deserves to be allowed.  The same is accordingly allowed with following directions to the OPs:-

i)     To refund Rs.75,000/- to the complainant, charged as premium for the policy No.0074251724, wrongly, illegally & arbitrarily, issued in the name of Gurbhajan Singh.

ii)    To pay a compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh to the complainant for causing him mental tension, physical harassment as well as monetary loss, due to their deficient act, as a result the policy of the complainant bearing NO.0025707557 had lapsed.

iii)   To pay litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.

iv)   To pay Rs.50,000/- as punitive damages for carrying out unfair trade practice. This amount should be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority, U.T., Chandigarh.

              This order be complied with by the OPs, jointly & severally, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which, it would be jointly & severally, liable to pay the above awarded amount, alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 07.09.2010 till the amount is actually paid to the complainants as well as to the State Legal Services Authority, U.T., Chandigarh, besides paying the litigation cost of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant. 

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties as well as to Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, U.T., Chandigarh, free of charge. The file be consigned.