| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 156 of 24.4.2018 Decided on: 6.4.2021 Gangu Ram Kumra aged 74 S/o Tirath Dass, Resident of H.No.102, Street No.4, Old Bishan Nagar Tehsil and District Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 3266/1, 2nd Floor, Sheranwala Gate, Patiala 147001 (Opposite Electricity Board) through its Senior Manager.
- Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,Unit 601 & 602, 6th Floor, Raheja Titanium, off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E) Mumbai-400063.
- S.K.Pathak agent Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 3266/1, 2nd Floor, Sheranwala Gate, Patiala 147001(Opposite Electricity Board) through its Senior Manager.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member ARGUED BY Sh.T.M.Sayal, counsel for complainant. Sh.Pankaj Verma, counsel for OPs No.1&2. Opposite party No.3 ex-parte. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Gangu Ram (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd., and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter referred to as the Act).
Facts of the complaint - Briefly the case of the complainant is that persuaded by the scheme of OPs No.1&2 suggested by OP No.3, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- in the name of his grandson Yatish Kumra and nominated his son Narinder Kumar Kumra as nominee. He handed over the said amount by way of cheque to OP No.3 and thereafter a booklet was issued which he never read over. Again on the asking of OP No.3 the complainant handed over the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- by way of cheque to OP No.3 who got issued the receipt and got signed some papers. It is averred that in the month of August,2016 onwards he had been receiving messages that the premium of the amount of Rs.1,29,999/- was due against the policy purchased by the complainant from the OPs. Similarly he received message in the month of October/2016 for the premium amount of Rs.1,19,998/-. On enquiry it was found that the two policies for 12 years were issued , the premiums of which were Rs.1,29,999.06 and Rs.1,19,998.95 respectively and in case of non deposit the policies would be lapsed. The complainant requested the OPs for the refund of the amount deposited by him and for cancellation of the alleged policies but all in vain and as such the OPs have played fraud with the complainant. There is also deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and has been harassed by the OPs. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to pay the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.1,30,000/- deposited in the name of Yatish Kumra and Narinder Kumar Kumra respectively alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of deposits till actual payment; to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-as compensation for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony and also to pay Rs.5000/-as costs of litigation.
Reply/Written statement - Upon notice OPs No.1&2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written statement while OP No.3 did not come present despite sending the notice through publication and was accordingly proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.10.2018.
- In the written statement filed by OPs No.1&2 ,preliminary objections have been raised to the effect that the present complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and abuse of the process of law; that the complaint is barred by limitation. Further it is submitted that on the basis of the proposal forms, the policies were issued to the complainant who had availed the services of an independent broker i.e. SMC insurance Broker and the complainant has failed to make the said broker as party to the complaint. Further that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is further submitted that as per the terms of the policy contract, if the policy is not suitable, the policy holder can cancel the same by returning the policy within 15 days Free Look Period from the day the policy holder received the policy but the complainant did not approach the OPs in this regard; that the complaint is devoid of any merit. It is further submitted that the OPs after receiving the proposal form and the documents issued the policy to the complainant he also appended his signatures on the application forms. Apart from this he had also signed on the electronic benefit illustration after fully understanding the terms and conditions of the policy.
- On merits, the OPs reiterated the pleas as raised in the preliminary objections which do not need to be repeated for the sake of brevity. After denying all other averments the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C21 and closed the evidence.
-
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OPs No.1&2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Swapnil Malvi, Manager Legal alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP5 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
-
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that OP No.3 representing himself to be the agent of OPs contacted the complainant and suggested one scheme and accordingly the complainant agreed and deposited Rs.1,30,000/- in the name of his grandson Yatish Kumra and nominee his son Narinder Kumar Kumra and handed over the said amount through cheque to OPs who issued receipt of Rs.130,000/-.The ld. counsel further argued that thereafter a booklet was received but the same was never read over by the complainant. Similarly the agent again contacted the complainant in the first week of September,2016 on phone to deposit more money in the fixed deposit and the complainant again handed over Rs.1,20,000/- to the OP through cheque, who received the same and issued the receipt. Thereafter again he received a book let but same was not read over by the complainant. The ld.counsel further argued that in the month of August/2016 onward the complainant had been receiving messages for the deposit of Rs.1,29,999/- and Rs.1,19,998/-. The complainant approached the OPs and the officials disclosed that the complainant purchased two policies for 12 years for which sum of Rs.1,29,999.06 and Rs.1,19,998.95 were to be paid otherwise policies will be lapsed. The ld. counsel argued that the complainant never purchased the said policies and he requested the OPs for the refund of the deposited amount but the same was not refunded. So the complaint be allowed.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OPs No.1&2 has argued that allegations of the complainant are contrary to the facts of the case. The ld. counsel argued that the complaint is barred by limitation having filed after two years. It is noteworthy that on the basis of proposal form subject policy was issued. All the allegations are false. The ld. counsel further argued that policy holder has availed the services of an independent SMC Insurance Broker who is an independent entity licensed by Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority (IRDA), who advised the customers on their insurance needs and thereafter arrange insurance policy from any insurance company as per their own judgment. The ld. counsel further argued that OPs No.1&2 are not liable for any acts of OP No.3.The ld. counsel further argued that it is settled principle of law that if any person signs any document, he/she has signed the same after reading and understanding the same properly. The ld. counsel further argued that the payment was never deposited so the same cannot be refunded back.
- To prove the case complainant Gangu Ram Kumar, aged about 75 years has tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint. In para no.4 of the affidavit, he deposed that he agreed to deposit Rs.1,30,000/- in the name of his grandson Yatish Kumra with the nomination of his son Narinder Kumar Kumra and handed over the amount by way of cheque to OP No.3 who got issued receipt of Rs.1,30,000/- and thereafter he received one booklet which was never read over by him. After that in the month of September/2016 said agent again contacted him on phone to deposit more money in the fixed deposit and accordingly he again deposited Rs.1,20,000/- by way of cheque and handed over the same to OP No.3 who got issued receipt. Again booklet was received but he never read over the same.Ex.C1 is the policy, in which letter was written to Gangu Ram Kumra,Ex.C2 is the receipt in the name of Gangu Ram Kumar of Rs.1,29,999.06 issued on 31July,2015 and sum assured is Rs.15,21,538/-, Ex.C3 is policy schedule in the name of Gangu Ram Kumra,Exs.C4 to Ex.C6 are policy documents of Bharti Axa, Ex.C7 is proposal form bearing photograph of Gangu Ram Kumra,Ex.C8 is also document of Bharti Axa,Ex.C9 is key feature document signed by Gangu Ram Kumra, Ex.C10 is policy details vide which Rs.1,19,998.95 was paid ,Ex.C11 is policy schedule,Exs.C12 to Ex.C20 are the documents of Bharti Axa,Ex.C21 is pass book in the name of Gangu Ram.
- On the other Swanil Malvi, Manager Legal tendered affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the written statement, Ex.OP1 is the proposal form,Exs.OP2 to Ex.OP5 are the documents of Bharti Axa.
- As per the allegations of the complainant Sh.S.K.Pathak, agent allured the complainant and told to deposit Rs.1,30,000/- in the fixed deposit and complainant will get double amount after five years. Accordingly Rs.1,29,999.06 was deposited vide receipt Ex.C2. Again the same agent contacted the complainant in the month of September/2016 on phone and asked to deposit Rs.1,20,000/-which will be double after five years. Accordingly Rs.1,20,000/-was deposited vide receipt,Ex.C10. It is pleaded that he never applied for any insurance policy and the insurance policy of 12 years was given to him. The ld. counsel for the complainant argued that fraud is visible from the fact that Gangu Ram Kumar is 74 years of age and he took the policy for 12 years. It is not possible for a person in the fag end of the life that he will took the policy of 12 years till the age of 86 and it is further argued by the complainant that the average range of age in this country is 65 years and a person is not suppose to live till 84 years and thus no such policy was taken by the complainant. It is commonly seen that the agent generally allured the customer into the trap to get commission.
- Admittedly Rs.130000/-was deposited in July 2015 vide Ex.C2 and Rs.120,000/- was deposited vide Ex.C10 in July/2016.After that nothing was deposited. If even otherwise it is viewed that the policy was discontinued by the complainant then also the insurance company of this country cannot withhold the hard earned money of the complainant and are liable to refund the amount deposited by the complainant.
- So in view of our above discussion the complaint stands allowed and the OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,50,000/-to the complainant alongwith interest @4% per annum from the date of deposit till actual payment. No order as to costs. Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
ANNOUNCED DATED:6.4.2021 Y.S.Matta Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
