DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                         Complaint No. 321

 Instituted on:   01.08.2018

                                                                           Decided on:     28.09.2023 

1. Sukhvir Singh aged 49 years S/o Gurbachan Singh.
2. Davinder Singh Son of Sukhvir Singh, both residents of village askrodi, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.          

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO 215-217, 4^th Floor, sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager-160022.
2. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, Opposite D.C. Kothi, Rem Basti, Sangrur, through its Branch Manager. P.N.148001.
3. Insurance Regulatory Development Authority of India (IRDA), 3^rd Floor, Parisrama Bhawan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad, through its G.M./P.C500001.

 ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant  : Shri Udit Goyal, Adv.              

For the Op.no.1 & 2  : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv.

For the Op.no.3        : None.

QUORUM

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                           : MEMEBR

KANWALJEET SINGH             : MEMBER

ORDER

KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER.

1. The brief facts of the case are that the present complaint is filed by complainant and he pleaded that in the second week of July 2016 complainant number 1 received a telephone call from Mr. B.K. Srivastava alleging himself as Senior Manager of HDFC Life Insurance Company Ltd. and asked the complainant number 1 that their company has launched a new FDR scheme. Under this scheme company will pay @ 24% p.a. for three years and the said amount can be withdraw at any time after 1 year. On believing the assertion of the representative of the Op.1 and Op.2 obtained the signature of the complainants on blank Performa for the purpose of investment and complainants paid an amount of Rs. 40,000/- to the said agent of Ops. After one month complainant number 1 again got the telephonic call from Gurdeep Singh alleging himself to be the company official and asked the complainants to make the investment in the company by saying that the said plan is going to close on  30.09.2016 and allured the complainants to make the investment in their company. The said officials obtained the six cheques from the complainant number 1 of different amount for making the investment in the company and again obtained the signature of Complainant number 1 & 2. Complainants issued the cheques bearing numbers 735401 to 735405 & 735407 of different dates for a total sum of Rs. 4,26,000/- and official of ops issued the receipt of the payment. In the month of May, 2017 complainant No.1 received a call from New Delhi by saying that the company has declared the bonus of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the investment made by him and the official of the company again visited the house of Complainants and again obtained the signature of the complainants for releasing the bonus and also obtained four cheques bearing numbers 771304 & 771305 of Rs. 99,000/- in total and another cheques number 491447 & 491448 of Rs. 90,000/-. In the month of July 2017 complainants were shocked to receive a call from the officials of HDFC Life Insurance co. ltd. was asked to deposit the amount of Rs. 40,000/- on or before 25.7.2017. If the complainants have not deposit the amount, then the policy shall be lapsed. The official of Ops disclosed the policy number 18582404 to the complainants. Complainant did not obtained any policy and the amount has been taken on the pretext of making the FDR @ 24% p.a. and the official told that three policies have been issued from their company under which the complainants have to pay a regularly 2,00,000/- p.a. for seven years. The official also told that other receipt pertains to other insurance company i.e. Kotak Mohindra, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. and Op.2. The complainants visited the office of Kotak Mohindra at Patiala and they told to the complainants that these receipts bearing policy number 03535614 and 03535690 under which the complainants make the investment for twelve years for Rs. 1,56,000/- regularly and if the amount was not paid, then his amount shall be forfeited. Complainants visited the office of Op.2. Then they disclosed to the complainant under policy number C265512993 and C2655529656 to pay 1,89,000/- premium annually for twelve years. Thereafter, complainants then visited the office of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Sangrur. After seeing the receipts, the officials disclosed that policy number 0330253933 and policy number 0330243905. Complainants will have to deposit regular premium of Rs. 1,10,000/- annually for ten years. Complainants were shocked to know that the officials of Ops mislead the complainants for making the investment in their company. Complainants are not in position to deposit the amount of Rs. 6,56,000/-  p.a. The complainants are poor agriculturist. Complainants came to know that the agents of the Ops have played fraud with the complainants and grabbed the hard earned money of the complainants by disclosing wrong averments regarding the investments. On 22.9.2017 an amount of Rs.54,204.77Ps was deducted from the bank account of the complainant number 2. It is the duty of the Op.1 and Op.2 and their agents to verify the fact that the person who is getting the insurance is having sufficient income to pay the regular premium or not and in the case in hand, the premium of Rs. 6,56,000/- p.a. in all the policies is not possible for the complainant and his son. Op.1 and Op.2 have issued the policies in contravention to the rules of IRDA (OP.3) and lastly prayed the Ops may kindly be directed to release the amount of Rs. 1,54,204.77Ps to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit of the amount till realization and Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental tension and agony and Rs. 22,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice Ops appeared and filed joint reply by Op.1 and Op.2 and taking legal objections that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the score that the two complainants filed the instant complaint without getting any permission from the Forum for filing joint complaint. The complaint is not maintainable. The complainants had failed to disclose any legal and valid cause of action against the Ops to file the present complaint. Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. There is not a single allegation which leads the Ops to either deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice.  The complaint is false, frivolous in nature and has been filed in order to cause undue harassment to the Op.
3. Facts of the case the Op received a proposal/application form duly filled and signed by the complainants seeking insurance on his life under the Bajaj Allianz Life Long Assure. On the basis of information and declaration provided in the application form, the company issued a policy number 0330243905 name of policy holder and life insured Sukhvir Singh. Commencement date was 22.9.2016, sum assured was 2,92,800/- in the premium amount was 53,011/- Premium frequency was 10 years and present status of the policy was lapsed and another policy number 0330253933 issued in the name of policy holder and life insured Mr. Davinder Singh. Commencement date was 22.9.2016, sum assured was 3,03,870/-. The premium amount was Rs. 53,012/- Premium frequency was 10 years. The benefit term was 70 years. The present status of policy was lapsed.
4. The Op, after receipt of duly filled proposal form alongwith other documents and the amount of the premium deposit had issued the subject policy. The Op submits that in this case also a copy of proposal form was sent alongwith policy documents to the complainants and the same has been received by the complainant. The complainants retained the policy documents and did not raise any objection towards the policy. Policy is a legal contract between the insurer and insured and the parties to it are bound by its terms and conditions.
5. Reply on merits, the replying Ops does their work as per the previsions of insurance law and follow the entire guidelines issued by IRDAI from time to time. The Op deals only in life insurance nothing else. Complainants themselves willing to show his interest to purchase the policy and they approached the advisor of the Op and complainants got the entire information and they opted to pay Rs. 55,000/- as annual premium. That soon thereafter the policy was dispatched to the complainants and the same was duly received by them. Complainants received the policy documents after purchasing the policy and it is too much illogical that a prudent person can pay such an amount without receiving any authenticate document from the Op. Such type of concealment clearly showed the malafide intention of the complainants just to get undue benefits from the Forum and to cause lost to the Op without any cogent reason. Complainants at the time of purchasing the Policy after ECS mode and as per said fact the premium against the policy deducted from their account. All the remaining allegations are denied by the Op.1 and Op.2 and prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with heavy costs.
6. Reply filed by Op.3 separately and he pleaded that all the allegations are denied made in the complaint, except which are admitted specifically. The complainant's have observed inter alia the following in their complaint. Believing the false promises of Op.1 and Op.2 the complainant no.1 showed his willingness to make the investment and he was told that their local agent will come with the detailed plan to the Complainants.  On believing the words of the agent of Op.1 and Op.2 the complainants made the investment in company of Op.1 and Op.2 for Rs. 40,000/-. Complainants issued the cheques bearing numbers 735401 to 735405 & 735407 of different dated for a total sum of Rs. 4,26,000/- and the above said amount were debited from the account of complainant. It is respectfully submitted that no specifically relieve is sought against the Op.3. At the outset, it is submitted that the complaint is basically between the complainants and Op.1 and Op.2 relating to cancellation of the policy sold to him by way of spurious calling and mis-selling and refund of amount paid by the complainants. Op.3 has nothing to do in the matter. Since, the onus to resolve the grievance is on the Op.1 and Op.2. The Op.3 has no role in this regard as it discharges regulatory and supervisory functions. The Op.3 lays down broad policy and does not adjudicate upon between individual policy holder and insurance company. The complainants can sue the insurance company for any deficiency in service, unfair trade practice etc. On the perusal of the complaint, it appears to be a case of spurious calling and mis-selling. Op.3 first issued a public notice dated 4.11.2010 that some instances have been observed that general public are receiving calls from individuals who claim to be representative of IRDAI. Op.3 is a regulatory body which does not involve directly or through any representative in sale of any kind of insurance or financial products and any person making any kind of transaction will be doing the same at one's own risk. Again Op.3 issued a public notice on 29.1.2014 and 15.8.2014 detailed advertisement and Informing public about the spurious calls. There is no relationship of consumer or service provider between the Op.3 and the complainants. Op.3 is statutory body set up by an act of parliament, does not charge any fees or receive any consideration for the statutory functions it renders. Therefore, the consumer protection Act is not attracted to Op.3. Op.3 neither a proper nor necessary party in these proceedings and prayed dismiss the complaint against Op.3.
7. Complainant has submitted into evidence documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 and Ex.C-12 & Ex.C-13 attested affidavit. Similarly, Op.no.1 submitted into evidence affidavit Ex.Op.1&2/1 alongwith documents Ex.Op.1&2/2 to Op.1&2/17and Similarly Op.3 has annexed annexure 1 to 11.  
8. We have heard the learned counsels of both the parties and gone through the record file carefully with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the parties. During arguments the contentions of the learned counsels are similar to their respective pleadings. So, there is no need to reiterate the same for avoiding the repetition. Now come to major controversy, whether the complainant is liable for relief as claimed by him in his prayer or not?
9. During argument the averment of the complainants counsel are that no evidence with regard to delivery of policy document issued by the Ops qua the complainant. Further, the issue raised by the complainant that the proposal form was not read over to the complainant. Complainant also pleaded at para number 3(b) of the complaint that the agent of the Ops obtained the signature on blank paper. Moreover, no evidence with regard to the income was placed on record by the Ops to show that the complainant was having the capacity to pay the annual premium. From the said evidence, it is clear that the alleged policy was issued by the Ops on mis representation by creating self style documents. It is writ large on the file that Ex.C-1 is the first premium receipt dated 23.09.2016 vide policy number 0330243905 issued in favour of complainant number 1 by Op.1 & Op.2. The regular payment mode is annual for a sum of Rs. 53011. The sum insured is Rs. 2,92,800/-. The date of commencement of risk was 22.9.2016. Premium paying term was ten years of both the policies. Similarly, as per Ex.C-2 first premium receipt was issued on 23.9.2016 in favour of complainant number 2 by Op.1 & Op.2 vide policy number 0330253933. Under the policy of complainant number 2, the sum insured was Rs. 3,03,870/-. The date of commencement of policy was 22.9.2016. The premium of policy was Rs. 53012/- which was annual. It transpire from Ex.C-10 account statement of Complainant number 1 at page number 5 , On 22.9.2016 two cheques number 7,35,405 & 7,35,407 of Rs. 55,000/- each issued in favour of Op.1 & Op.2 (total 1,10,000/-).
10. Per contra, Ex.Op.1 and 2/2 is a proposal form of complainant number 2. It  is mentioned on page no.2, the annual income of Rs. 2,20,000/- and nature of duty mentioned as teacher in govt. School. It means complainant number 2 has sufficient income to deposited the premium of Rs. 53012/- p.a. to the Ops. In the proposal form at column number 25 complainant number 2 put his signature in English language as specimen signature. This commission has examined the document Ex. Op.1 & 2/4 is a proposal form of complainant number 1. It is stated education of complainant no.1 is matriculation. Annual income mentioned as Rs. 7,00,000/-. Income proof is Form-"J". Nature of duties are described as agriculturist. On the last page of proposal form of complainant no.1 put his signature in Punjabi language and complainant no.2 put his signature in English language as witness. Complainant no.1 also written on the last page of proposal form that " I listen and understand and agreed". This declaration made in regional language of Punjabi. Sum insured mentioned as 3,75,300/-. As per Ex.Op.1 & 2 /6 &7 premium quotation cum benefit illustration of both the complainant's put their signature on each and every page.  Ex.Op.1&2/10 is a form 'J' of Rs. 3,46,964/- dated 20.10.2015 and Rs. 3,97,393/- dated 15.4.2016 issued in the name of complainant no.1. We feel that complainant no.1 has sufficient income to deposit the premium of the policy in question. Ex.Op.1&2/14 at page no.2 policy term and conditions clause 4(d) is reproduced as under:-

If a regular premium has not been paid in full before the Expiry of the grace period, the policy will be subject to the below mentioned conditions.

4(d) Early termination value is available for a policy where at least one (1) full years regular premium have been paid but three (3) full years regular premium have not been paid and twelve months from the policy commencement date have been completed under the policy. During arguments the main arguable points raised by learned counsel for complainant's are that no evidence with regard to delivery of policy document was delivered to the complainant. 16.9.2016 to 26.9.2016 just within 9 days, the amount of Rs. 4,26,000/- was grabbed. This Commission has observed that para no.3(g) of the complaint, Complainant's had pleaded that they visited the Office of HDFC Life at Sangrur and Showed the payment receipts of investment made by him. It means the stand of complainant's are contradictory in itself . One side complainant's pleaded at para no.3(j) of the complaint that no document of investment has been sent to the complainant's. " A Man can lie, butdocument can't". Complainants has miserably failed to prove this factum that as per pleading para no.3 (g) of the complaint, complainants how can received the payment receipts of the investment. We feel that the plea taken by complainants with regard to not received documents of investment is not believable. This Commission has no hesitation to hold that if the complainant's signatures are obtained on blank printed Performa, then why not complainants have given any representation to any authority from the date of execution of the proposal form i.e. 16.9.2016 to till date. This Commission has the considered view that the complainant no.2 passed Matriculation examination in the year 2003 as per Ex.Op.1&2/3. It means he knows read and write. Complainant's being an ordinary prudent man at the time of execution of the policy documents in question having full sense about the policy and they put their signature with their sweet will. The Ops also followed the IRDAI guidelines at the time of execution of the policy in question. Ex.Op.1&2/11 is a PAN Card of Sukhvir Singh and he also put his signature in Punjabi language on the same. Complainant had pleaded in his complaint at para no.3(c) that the officials obtained six cheques from complainant no.1. It is writ large on the file that Eight cheques were issued by the complainant no.1 and two cheques were issued by the complainant no.2. However, from the perusal of Ex.C-10 on 25.7.2016 a demand draft issued in favour of HDFC by complainant no.1 of Rs. 40,161/-. Complainant no.1 again on 16.09.2016 issued cheque no. 735404 of Rs. 76,000/- and cheque no. 735403 of Rs. 80,000/- and chequs no. 735405 dated 22.09.2016 to Bajaj of Rs. 55,000/-. On the same day another cheque no. 735407 dated 22.9.2016 of Rs. 55,000/- and on 26.9.2016 cheque no.735401 to HDFC Standard Life I of Rs. 80,000/- and again on 26.9.2016 HDFC Standard Life I cheque no. 735402 of Rs. 80,000/- issued by complainant no.1. Again after 7 months and 22 days on 17.5.2017 cheque no. 71305 of Rs. 49,000/- and cheque no. 71304 of Rs. 50,000/- issued by complainant no.1 in favour of TALIC respectively. Similarly, as per Ex.C-11 complainant no.2 on 23.5.2017 vide cheque no. 491948 of Rs. 47,000/- and cheque no. 491947 of Rs. 43,000/- issued as premium of the policy of TATA AIA as per Ex.C-9. So the total 9 policies are executed between the complainants and Different insurance companies, out of which 6 policies are issued in favour of Complainant no.1. Two policies are issued in favour of Davinder Singh S/o complainant no.1 and one policy issued in favour of Maninder Singh Grewal S/o Sukhvir Singh complainant. The terms and condition of the policy are binding upon the respective parties. No party can go beyond the terms and conditions of the policy. The insurance contract are utmost good faith in nature. This Commission has the considered view that i

11. Resultantly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present complaint in hand we partly allow the complaint of the complainants and direct the Op.1 & Op.2 to provide the early termination value to the complainants as per the terms and condition of the policy in question alongwith interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till its realization to the complainants and consolidated sum of Rs. 5000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.
12. This order be complied by Op1&2 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of order.
13. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.
14. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.  

                                Announced.                                              

                                28^th September, 2023

( Kanwaljeet Singh)    (Sarita Garg)  (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

    Member                        Member                  President