Dated : 16 Jan 2023

FACTS

            Complainant is found to have filed the instant complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite Parties thereby making an allegation of unfair trade practice and fraud on the part of the Opposite Parties. According to complainant, as he was willing to purchase a fixed deposit policy and with the help of Raju Kar and Sonali Sil- agents of the Opposite Parties, a policy being policy No. 501-1547410 dated 11/12/2013 was issued in his favour. The amount paid was Rs.1,00,000.43/-. The term of the said policy was 20 years. He was told that it was a one-time investment. Complainant had to sign blank proposal form in connection with the said policy. He was aged about 84 years suffering from various ailments and on getting the policy papers from the agents of the Opposite Parties he found that the said Policy was not a fixed deposit policy rather it was a Life Insurance Policy. So, he expressed his unwillingness to continue with the policy and asked them to cancel the same immediately. Following the advice of Raju Kar, agent of the Opposite Parties, complainant wrote a letter on 08/01/2014 addressing the Opposite Parties for cancellation of the policy. Said agent also told him to give a cancelled cheque in connection with the cancellation of the said Policy. It is alleged that at the time of taking cancelled cheque, the said agent took six (6) cheques from the Cheque Book of the complainant’s I.C.I.C.I Bank Account and after forging his signature withdrew Rs.9,00,000/- through three (3) cheques as detailed in the petition of complaint. Thereafter, said agent did not keep in touch with the complainant. On updating his Pass Book in the month of October, 201 he was shocked to find the withdrawal of such a huge amount from his bank account. Then he lodged a complaint with Bidhannagore East Police Station and a case was started in the Court of A.C.J. M, North 24 Parganas vide F.I.R No-68 of 2015 and G.R. Case No-582/2015 under Sections 460, 420, 465 and 468, I.P.C in which charge-shit was also submitted. Complainant also alleged that the signature of his son in the proposal form under the column of “Life to be insured” was forged as during the relevant time his son was in the USA and not in Kolkata. Thereafter, his son issued a letter on 08/06/2019 to the Opposite Parties but no reply was given by them. Subsequently, on 23/07/2019 and 10/03/2021, complainant through his son complained through email about the fraudulent activities of the Opposite Parties on 11/06/2019, the Grievance Cell of the Opposite Parties replied that they registered a complaint under Reference No.CRU096851. In the said replies, the Opposite Parties assured for necessary examination in respect of the said complaint but nothing was done by the Opposite Parties. So, the complainant filed this complaint praying for refund of the amount paid by him along with interest, compensation and cost of litigation etc.

            Opposite Parties contested this case by filing a written version along with evidence etc. They denied all the allegations of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the instant complaint.

            Now, the point for consideration is if the complainant is entitled to the relief (s) as prayed for.

FINDINGS:

            We carefully considered the evidence filed on behalf of both the parties in accordance with the respective pleadings and also the replies of the Opposite Parties to the questionnaire of the complainant and respective brief notes of argument filed by the parties. We also considered the documents filed on behalf of the complainant. On going through the same, we find that complainant got a Life Insurance Policy issued by the Opposite Parties by paying premium and subsequently, he wanted to cancel the said Policy. We find from the nature of the complaint that the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ within the meaning of the term as defined by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

            Admittedly, the policy being No. 501-1547410 was issued to the complainant by the Opposite Parties wherein one Chiranjeeb Ghosh who is said to be the son of the complainant was shown as life insured. Complainant paid the premium of Rs.1,00,000.43/-. The term of the said policy was 20 years and sum assured was Rs.11,10,637/-.

            Opposite Parties claimed that the instant complaint is barred by limitation and not only that complainant failed to cancel the said Policy within the Free Look Period which is 15 days from the date of receipt of the Policy bond. We find that one application for condonation of delay was also filed by the complainant at the time of filing the complaint. What we find the Policy Certificate was issued on 31/12/2013 and thereafter complainant issued a letter on 08/01/2014 praying for cancellation of the said Policy and subsequently, on 11/06/2019, the Opposite Parties replied to the said letter of the complainant through Email. This complaint was admitted on perusing the documents and also contentions of the complainant. This apart, according to complainant, during the period of pandemic, no steps could be taken by him. So, considering all these we cannot say now that the instant complaint is barred by limitation.

            Annexure ‘B’ is found to be the letter addressed to Opposite Party No. 2 dated 08/01/2014 wherein the complainant requested for cancellation of the said policy and prayed for refund of the amount which he paid. This letter was issued by the complainant in fact, during the free look period of 15 days. So, it cannot be said that the complainant did not cancel the policy within the Free Look Period. In their replies by the Opposite Parties to the questionnaire of the complainant, they agreed that said Raju Kar and Sonali Sil are the agents who introduced the policy to the complainant. We also find from the written version and also the evidence of the complainant that the complainant is willing to return the whole premium amount paid by the complainant (paragraph No. 5 in the written version and paragraph No. 7 in the evidence of the complainant).

            So, considering all the materials on record and hearing the submissions of both the parties and following the aforesaid discussion we hold that the complainant has been able to prove his case and therefore, he is entitled to the relief as prayed for. Complainant is entitled to Rs.1,00,000.43/- along with interest on the said amount since the date of the policy i.e. 11/12/2013. This apart, complainant is also entitled to cost of litigation.

            However, we find from the replies of the Opposite Parties to the questionnaire of the complainant (Reply to query No. 7) in which complainant specifically asked how much amount Opposite Parties would pay, the Opposite Parties agreed to pay Rs.1,98,000/- to the complainant.

            So, following the aforesaid fact, we opined that an order of Rs.1,98,000/- in total including interest on the principal premium amount would serve the ends of justice. This apart, complainant should get Rs.5000/- for cost of litigation.

Accordingly,     it    is

ORDERED

That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Parties.

Opposite Parties are directed to pay the said amount of Rs.1,98,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Ninety-Eight Thousand).

Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) towards cost of litigation.

Both the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to make the aforesaid payment and comply with this order within 45 days from the date of this order failing which, complainant shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

If the above order is not complied with within the said stipulated period, awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. after 45 days from the date of this order, until realization in full.

Dictated and corrected by me