Order-25.
Date-16/06/2015.
Complainant Smt. Shiuli Ghattak by filing this complaint submitted that complainant had an account with Standard Chartered Bank, Salt Lake Branch, Kolkata – 91which is being maintained since prior to the year 2000 and the husband of the complainant used to visit the said Bank to avail of the banking facilities related to this account and while inside the bank premises the husband of the complainant was often approached by the officers of the bank and employees of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance for opening a onetime insurance policy for getting higher return than that of the bank interest and same was offered by the bank employees and some employees of the Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance and they actively encouraged the complainant’s husband and in fact bank itself started to promote the insurance policies of Bajaj Allianz from its own premises and employees of the Bank actively canvassed to their own customers to transfer their money held by them in the accounts of the bank and invest the money into Bajaj Allianz for higher returns and for one time premium.
At that time Abhijit Roy Chowdhury the then Relationship Manager and working at Standard Chartered Bank, Salt Lake, Kolkata and now transferred and posted at the Patna Branch of the Bank met the complainant and her husband at her residence at DL-17, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 91 very often in connection with Bajaj Allianz schemes and he was promoting the insurance policy floated by Bajaj Allianz for and on behalf of the Bank in question.
In the year 2007 the said Relationship Manager of Standard Chartered Bank repeatedly persuaded the complainant to invest her money to buy Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance policy by paying one time premium for getting higher interest and relying upon his assurance, complainant agreed to purchase one time investment by transferring the money lying in the bank account in the Standard Chartered Bank at Salt Lake, Kolkata and it was also expressed by the Relationship Manager that the bank itself had authorized all employees to actively promote the interest of Bajaj Allianz policy to the account holder of the bank.
Thereafter husband of the complainant enquired about the matter and came to understand that the bank was a corporate agent of Bjaja Allianz and so, relying upon the said Relationship Manager, complainant’s husband agreed to purchase one time premium policy and accordingly as per advice of the Relationship Manager of the op Bank a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was withdrawn from complainant’s account for purchasing one time LIC policy and accordingly issued a cheque, being cheque No. 130820 dated 13.02.2008 for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- from her account lying with Standard Chartered Bank and as per advice of the Relationship Manager, complainant singed some bank papers and she was duly assured that all the columns will be duly filled up by the Bank and or their employees and thereafter the husband of the complainant died due to cancer and due to shock for the death of her husband, complainant was in depression and thereafter the business of her husband was closed.
But truth is that Relationship Manager assured that it is a onetime premium in the name of the complainant and maturity date is 25.02.2033 when complainant shall have to get the double amount and after some days the Relationship Manager delivered the original copy of LIC of Bajaj Allianz in the resident of the complainant.But complainant after getting the same was shocked when demand for payment of another premium was made by Bajaj Allianz in the later part of 2009 and early part of 2010.When complainant met with the Relationship Manager who asked the complainant to ignore such demands as the annual premium was not mandatorily payable.But complainant expressed her inability further more or to pay further any premium and complainant expressed her inability to pay any further premium.
Fact remains the policy no. is 0088370518, but in the policy document age is noted as 06.03.1967 i.e. 40 years.But actually on the date of alleged filling up form complainant was aged about 61 years and her date of birth was 1947.Further the nominee her daughter’s age is shown as 12.03.1988, but her actual date of birth is 13.11.1966.Moreover in the application father and mother (parents) of the complainant age were shown as 79 and 75 and status is written alive.But in the year 1983 father of the complainant died and at the same time in the policy document it is shown that the husband is 45 years, but actually in the year 2008, age of the husband was 72 years.Complainant challenged all the entries made by the Bank employees related to the death and other materials information.But they did not pay any heed and so in fact the entire application for purchasing the policy was prepared by the bank employees as per their own wish without knowing anything and by misleading they only collected the signatures and cheque and as per their wish they filled up the form.
So, such sort of document is no doubt not a contract in view of the fact the application form is full of errors.So, that cannot be implemented and by any means upon the ops and practically by false representation and for purpose of misleading the complainant, it was done by the op Bank and other ops have not given any chance to realize what would be the fate if such a policy purchase and in the above circumstances, complainant after receipt of the information from the op in the year 2009-10 for payment of second premium, complainant realised that he has been deceived by the op and it was nothing but a mislead for which complainant lodged a complaint before the Bank that was duly accepted but they stated that the matter may be enquired from the Bajaj Allianz for cancellation on polity etc and in the above premises, complainant asked to say cancellation of the policy and for getting refund of the entire amount.But op Insurance Company has not finalized the same and did not take any action, for redressal complainant filed this complaint.
On the other hand op nos. 1 to 3 by filing written statement submitted that the LIC Proposal form is on the basis of contract and is a very vital document and fact remains that proposal from was signed by the complainant and there are no allegation of overwriting/manipulations in the proposal form and policy was issued duly filled and signed proposal form which is just and legal and further submitted that it was accepted of the proposal based on assertion of the terms and conditions of the policy before signing in the proposal form and so the present policy is binding upon the complainant and further submitted that all the allegations against op no.4 the Corporate Agents and Officers.So, answering op is not responsible for the acts of commission or omission on the part of the op no.3/Agent and the answering ops have never given any assurances as alleged and a person who signed the document is responsible for the contents of the same and it is specifically mentioned that the documents forwarded by the Standard Chartered Bank forming the basis of issuance of policy by the underwriter and other allegations are false and fabricated and there is no question of refund of the deposit amount and it was not mislead on the part of the op Insurance company and in the above circumstances, the complaint should be dismissed.
Most interesting factor is that in this case op nos. 3 & 4 the Standard Chartered Bank and Relationship Manager have not appeared to contest this case and they did not file any written statement even after receipt of the notice and accordingly the case was heard after closure of hearing of the complainant finally.
Decision with reasons
After proper scrutiny of the complaint and written version and also considering the copy of the application form on the basis of which the policy document was issued and it is found that in the application form there are several defects about the age of the complainant status of the parents of the complainant regarding their age and also nominee’s age etc. and about those errors there is no whisper made by the Insurance Company.There is no explanation and the application form for purchasing the policy was accepted by the op insurance company though apparently it is found that it is with full of errors.
So, considering that fact, it is clear that op insurance company has nothing to say about that defective proposal form which was accepted by the op insurance company.
Further from the written version of the op, it is clear that Solicitation was done by the Standard Chartered Bank, Salt Lake and op no.5 and the entire proposal form duly filled up was sent to under writer for policy.Further from the written version it is also found that op admitted that everything was done by the employees and officers of the op nos. 4 & 5 and they only received it and accepted it and issued policy except that they never talked with the complainant or other.Then question is why op insurance company has not denied the allegation as made against op nos. 4 & 5.
Fact remains that against Standard Chartered Bank complainant has made allegation and their employees that is op nos. 4 & 5, they received notices but they have not contested.Op insurance company has not denied the allegation against op nos. 4 & 5 but stated that everything was done by the Standard Chartered Bank and if there is any allegation, it is the allegation against Standard Chartered Bank authority and this bank is liable for that.
Considering that fact it is clear that admitted position is that op/ Standard Chartered Bank is the corporate agent of the Bajaj Allianz and they are selling goods that is insurance policies on behalf of op nos. 1 to 3.So, it is clear that bank may be here and there, but only to earn profit and commission mis-sell this policy by giving false information to the complainant and her husband that one time Rs. 1,50,000/- premium shall be paid and if it would be paid in that case after expiry of 25.02.1933 a sum shall be Rs. 3,00,000/- and this allegation as made by the complainant has not been denied by the op nos. 4 & 5 the renowned bank and their highest officer that means the allegation as made by the complainant is denied either from the side of the bank or from the side of the insurance company.
So, it is clear that the entire form was filled up by the employees of the Standard Chartered Bank but they are not denying the fact and they did not fill up the form.
Another factor is that in the application form it is found that complainant’s date of birth is noted 1967, her age was 61, but her daughter date of birth is noted 1988.But it shall be 1966.Husband age is noted 45 but at that time husband age was 71.Further the parents status of the complainant is shown leaving but her father died in the year 1983.But those errors are not challenged by the op insurance company, though op tried to convince that they checked up the form but the entire defence of the ops is proved false from the voter Id Card, PAN Card etc. and it is also proved that the present policy form was not as per order and there are so many errors and all the errors are very vital in nature even then it was accepted.Then it is clear that the Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. only for the purpose of selling their product appointed to Standard Chartered Bank authority to sell it for collection of premium but no other responsibility was discharged before accepting the same.
Most interesting factor is that due to so many errors in the application form insurance company is silent.But they have admitted that policy was issued as per documents and proposal form sent by the Standard Chartered Bank.Then it is clear that such sorts of works were done by op nos. 4 & 5 who are corporate agents of op nos. 1 & 3 and it is the liability of the insurance company to prove that their agents acted morally, honestly and giving all correct information in the proposal form and also about the status of the policy of the complainant.Complainant on oath has stated that she invested for pension payment premium because she had no income and in this regard we have gathered that she is now widow and she had no business and about her husband’s business it is already closed.So, about the financial capacity of the complainant to pay yearly premium to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- was not at all checked and considered by the op Insurance Company and op Insurance Company did everything as per Standard Chartered Bank Employees Act.Then it is clear that such an act on behalf of the op nos. 4 & 5 shall be treated as an act of op nos. 1, 2 & 3.
It is peculiar that op nos. 1, 2 & 3 have no honest approach to criticize op nos. 4 & 5 and they have not challenged that their corporate agent did not act properly and considering all the above fact and circumstances, we are convinced to hold that Corporation agent of op nos. 1 & 3 misled the complainant, allured the complainant and assured that one time payment of premium will give her future benefit after maturity of the policy in the year 2033 and invariably such assurance was completely false and it is also clear from the written version of the op nos. 1 to 3.
But op nos. 1 to 3 cannot anyway deny the moral liability in this regard because it is the mandatory provision as per IRDA rules and regulation that at first consent form shall be placed before the customer in which details of premium terms whether it is one time or long time period, everything shall be mentioned there and thereafter complainant shall have to realize and sign by putting his/her comment.What type of policy she/he wants to purchase.Thereafter supply of the application of proposal form shall arise and it is legal duty of the insurance company and to check whether the customer has his capacity to pay premium or not and if after consulting with the customer and talking with the customer and after discussion op Insurance Company finds the status that customer has no capacity to pay such premium regularly, in that case no policy should be opened and the paid amount shall be returned.All those formalities have not been done by the op nos. 1 to 3 because they are the business men and they are in the field for the purpose to defraud the customer and anyhow collect some premium.Because insurance company knows very well that collection of premium is their capital and if customer fails to continue it, then it shall be forfeited and they shall be benefited and customer shall be deceived in all respect.But that is not the principle of Insurance Policy because it is social legislation and it is for the protection of the customer and in the present case it is proved that op nos. 1 to 3 or 4 or 5 never acted on good faith, never informed the details about the fate of the policy.But op nos. 1 to 3 or 4 or 5 Corporate agent 4 or 5 assured the complainant and complainant believed them that it is one time policy and double amount shall be received by the complainant after maturity.But everything is proved false when it is found that even after receipt of summons, they did not appear to contest this case and they did not challenge the allegation of the complainant, not only that the entire proposal form is full of information with errors and regarding the status of the parent and status of the complainant regarding the age of husband and the insurance company has also failed to prove that those are not errors and in such a way op issued the policy blindly.Then it is clear that the entire policy is with full of errors and without checking the very information as noted in the proposal form op nos. 1 & 3 issued the same so the entire defective policy has not corrected by any one on the part of the op and no doubt such sort of sale as made by the op nos. 1 & 3 through their corporate agent is nothing but a deceitful manner of trade and that practice is followed by this insurance company and other insurance companies in most of the cases for which several customers are being deceived and they are appearing before this Forum for relief because insurance companies are not willing to refund them their mis-sale policy amount.
In the above premises and relying upon the above findings we are convinced to hold that complainant’s allegation is true and which is proved from the fact that op nos. 4 & 5 did not challenged the same though they are corporate agent of op nos. 1 to 3 and op nos. 1 & 2 have also not challenged that allegation and they have not also brought any allegation against op nos. 4 & 5.Then it is clear that the policy was sold by the op nos. 4 & 5 by mis-representation and it was no doubt a mis-sale and truth is that the application form is full of errors for which it is not treated as valid Form so, complainant is entitled to get back of Rs. 15,000/- when mis-sale was made by the op nos. 4 & 5 for purchasing the policy of op no.3 and when the conduct of the business of the op nos. 1 & 3 is proved a deceitful manner of trade and when the conduct of the op nos. 4 & 5 is also proved the deceitful manner of practice and trade, complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
In the result, this complaint succeeds.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 3,000/- against op nos.1 to 3 and same is allowed against op nos. 3 & 4 with cost of Rs.5,000.-
Op nos. 1 to 3 are hereby directed to refund the entire amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as deposited by the complainant against such policy when that policy is found invalid contract and it was nothing but mislead to the complainant for which op nos. 1 to 3 shall have to pay within one month from the date of this order failing which penal interest at the rate Rs. 200/- per day shall be assessed till full satisfaction of the decree, if it is collected it shall be deposited to this Forum.
Op no.4 & 5 are hereby directed to pay compensation and such Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant for harassing the Sr. Citizen lady having no status as only housewife and for selling such sort of item of insurance policy by mis-representation and it must be paid to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which for non-compliance of op nos. 4 & 5shall have to pay jointly and severally till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected it shall be deposited to this Forum.
Ops are directed to comply the order very strictly failing which penal action shall be started against them for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed.
