Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Challenging the dismissal order being passed by the Ld. District Forum as above, this Appeal is moved by Smt. Mitali Singh, the de facto Complainant.
The instant complaint case was filed over alleged mis-selling of the subject policy by the Respondents which, however, have been vehemently disputed by them.
Respondent No. 1 did not participate in the entire proceeding before us despite proper service of notice upon it. Therefore, we heard the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates for the Appellant and Respondent No. 2.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submitted that notwithstanding the Appellant is a simple house-wife, she has been described as a Professional in the proposal form. Further, although the Appellant did not possess any PAN card at the time of issuance of the policy, the PAN Card no. of her husband was attributed to her by the Respondent No. 1 in their letter dated 02-10-2010. He wondered, while 2nd October is observed as a National Holiday on account of Gandhi birthday, how the purported letter could be issued by the Respondent Insurer on that day. Ld. Advocate also submitted that the original policy which she intended to obtain was withdrawn by the Respondent No. 1 due to Regulatory issues and in its place a new policy was issued. However, the Respondent No. 1 did not obtain her confirmation before incorporating the changes in the insurance policy and issued the same straightway forging her signature. Drawing the attention of this Bench to the concerned letter dated 01-10-2010, Ld. Advocate contended, while the said letter was purportedly issued from the Pune Office of the Respondent No. 1 on 01-10-2010, how the Appellant, who was stationed 2,000 kms. (approx.) away from there in Kolkata, could sign it on the very same day. Ld. Advocate also alleged that, flouting IRDA guidelines, standard verification call was not made by the Respondent No. 1 before issuance of the policy. Pointing out all these inconsistencies, the Ld. Advocate prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
It is a fact that the Appellant needed to flag all these issues within the free-look period. However, she took long time to wake up from her deep slumber which clearly points out great lapses on her part.
Having said that, we cannot lose sight of the pertinent issues being raised by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant. On due consideration of the same, we are convinced that the Respondent No. 1 indulged in unfair trade practice while issuing the policy in question which is not pardonable. Keeping in mind the improbability of signing a document on the very same day of its issuance by a person who stays at a faraway place, we have no hesitation whatsoever holding that the purported signature did not belong to the Appellant. Considering the gross irregularities in the matter of issuance of the subject policy, we deem it appropriate to direct the Respondent No. 1 to refund the entire premium amount paid so far to the Appellant within 40 days hence, i.d., Respondent No. 1 shall be liable to pay simple interest @ 9% p.a. over the awarded sum from the date of filing of the complaint case till full and final payment is made.
Accordingly, the Appeal stands allowed in part. The impugned order is hereby set aside.
