STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

M/s Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., and others having its registered office at GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada Pune-411006, (Branch Office at SCO 271, Industrial Area, Panchkula) and SCO 215-217, Sector 34-A, 4^th Floor, Chandigarh through  Shri R.S.Kalsi ZLM, Bajaj Allianz L.I.C., Sector 34-A, SCO 215-217, Chandigarh.

                                                                .…Appellants

                                Versus

1.     Bhupinder Singh son of S. Parduman Singh, resident of B.S.Singh & CO LLP 182 Stapleton Road, Easton, Bristol BSS ONZ UK.

Address: 188 Advocates Enclave, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh.

2.     Sh.Sanjay Kumar, Business Development Manager, M/s Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.215-217, Sector 34-A, 4th Floor, Chandigarh.

3.     Sh.Varun Sharma, M/s Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.215-217, Sector 34-A, 4th Floor, Chandigarh.

                                                                …. Respondents 

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER

Argued by Sh.Deepak Arora, Advocate for the appellants.

                 Respondent No.1 in person.

                Respondents No.2 and 3 already exparte.

                                        ---

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.                    This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties No.1 and 2 (now appellants) against the order, dated 30.08.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 19 of 2011 vide which, it allowed the complaint, and directed the OPs as under:-

“In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed with the following directions to the OPs, jointly and severally, to:-

(i)       refund a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of deposit;

(ii)      pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

(iii)    pay Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

OPs are jointly and severally directed to comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order failing which, OPs shall be liable to pay the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- i.e. (Rs.1,50,000 + Rs.50,000) along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e.13.01.2011 till actual payment besides payment of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation”.

2.                    The facts, in brief, are that the complainant along with his family members, is a British National, and Permanent Resident of U.K. The complainant visited India, in the month of May 2010, for a few days. It was stated that Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 (now respondents No.2 and 3) enticed the complainant to pay a consolidated amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, and assured him, that he would receive 18% interest along with an Insurance Life Cover Benefit of Rs.7,50,000/-. He paid the said amount. It was further assured that the complainant could withdraw the said amount with interest at any time. It was further stated that the complainant again visited India in December 2010 for four weeks and Opposite Party No.3 delivered him, copy of the policy on 1.1.2011. It was further stated that he was shocked to see, that instead of issuing the said policy, in his name, the same was issued in the name of his son namely Jai Teging Singh by the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that Opposite Parties forged the signatures of his son on the proposal form, as well as the notice of assignment. It was further stated that Jai Teging Singh never visited India since 2005 and thus, Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 falsely manipulated the signatures of the complainant and his son on the assignment form. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties committed fraud with the complainant. The complainant immediately requested the Opposite Parties to cancel the said policy, which they fraudulently issued, in the name of his son, but to no avail. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.                    In their joint written reply, appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, took up the preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the complaint, on the ground, that the complainant being not insured, was not a consumer and, as such, was not competent to file the complaint.  Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 also pleaded that since serious allegations of forgery and fraud have been levelled by the complainant, the adjudication whereof, required detailed examination and cross examination of the witnesses and production of documentary evidence, the Consumer Fora could not decide the matter, the proceedings before which are summary in nature.  It was stated that the proposal form dated 10.5.2010 for the insurance of Sh.Jai Teging Singh, son of the complainant  was received by the Opposite Parties duly signed by him (Sh.Jai Teging Singh) along with all the mandatory KYC and AML documents of both Jai Teging Singh and the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant and Sh. Jai Teging Singh never disclosed their NRI status.  Rather the Indian driving license, pan card and address proof of India, as also, the photographs of Sh.Jai Teging Singh were submitted to induce the Opposite Parties to issue the policy, in question. It was further stated that the original policy bond containing the terms and conditions were despatched to the life assured namely Jai Teging Singh at the address, given in the proposal form on 2.6.2010, vide speed post and the same was duly delivered. It was further stated that, in case, the life assured was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, he had an option to return the policy, and ask for the refund of premium, within a period of 15 days. But no such request was made by the policy holder. It was further stated that Sh.Jai Teging Singh had applied for the policy, out of his own free will, after fully understanding the terms and conditions of the policy. It was further stated that even Jai Teging Singh assigned the policy in favour of the complainant by submitting notice and form of assignments alongwith the relevant documents.  It was further stated that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 could not be held liable for any act or conduct of the agents as they are licensed by a statutory body named “Insurance Regulatory Development Authority”. It was further stated that, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 were neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.                    Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 were exparte in the District Forum.

5.                    The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.                    After hearing the complainant, in person, the Counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

7.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.

8.                    We have heard the Counsel for the appellants, respondent No.1, in person, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

9.                    The Counsel for the appellants has submitted that since the serious allegations of fraud and forgery have been leveled by respondent No.1/complainant, the same could  not be adjudicated upon by the Consumer Fora, before which, the proceedings are summary in nature. In the complaint, as also, in his affidavit by way of evidence, the complainant,  in no uncertain terms stated that having been induced by Opposite Party No.3, he purchased the Insurance Policy, after payment of premium, but when he received the policy document, he was shocked to see that on the proposal form the signatures of his son Jai Teging Singh had been forged by Opposite Party No.3 and the policy had been issued in his name, who was not present in  India at that time.  According to the complainant on Annexure R-1-copy of the proposal form and the declaration, the signatures of his son Jai Teging Singh were forged by Opposite Party No.3. The complainant also testified, in his affidavit that his signatures and the signatures of his son on Annexure R-2-Notice of Assignment were also forged by Opposite Parties No.3 and 4.  On the other hand, according to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2/appellants the proposal form-Annexure R-1 duly signed along with the relevant documents were submitted by Jai Teging Singh, the life assured. It is further the case of the appellants that even the notice of assignment also bears the signatures of Jai Teging Singh and the complainant. In this situation, the question arises, as to whether, such complicated, complex and disputed facts could be properly adjudicated upon by the District Forum, proceedings before which, were summary in nature. The answer to this question, must be in the negative. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Munimahesh Patel 2006(2)CPC668(SC), Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.I(1998)CPJ13, a case decided by  four members’ Bench of the National Consumer Commission and  M/s Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd. Vs United Commercial Bank 111(1992)CPJ 50, a case decided by three member Bench of  the National Commission it was held that when there are allegations of forgery, fraud and cheating, adjudication whereof, requires elaborate evidence, the  same cannot be decided by a Consumer Fora, proceedings before which, are summary in nature.   In  Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.’s case(supra), there was a dispute, about the disclosure of information incorporated  in the proposal form.   Two copies of the proposal form were produced. In one copy of the proposal form, the insured stated that she was working as a teacher, whereas, in the other copy of the proposal form, it was  stated that she was a  housewife.  The insured, thus, on the basis of such information, obtained the policy.  The insured died. When the claim was filed by her legal representatives, the same was repudiated, on the ground, of a false disclosure of information, by the insured, in the proposal form. The District Forum, accepted the complaint, which was filed, by the legal representatives of the deceased insured.  The State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum, on the ground, that there was dispute of disclosure made, in the proposal form and the information given and, as such, the facts being disputed and of complicated nature, the complainant should take appropriate proceedings for establishing his claim, and for seeking the reliefs   in the Court of competent jurisdiction. Feeling aggrieved, a revision petition, was filed before the National Consumer Disputes  Redressal Commission, which accepted the same, holding that the information disclosed by the insured had no nexus with her death and, as such, restored the order of the District Forum. Feeling aggrieved, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. filed the Civil Appeal  bearing No.4091 of 2006. The Hon’ble Supreme Court  held that the proceedings before the Commission are essentially summary in nature. It was further held that the factual position was required to be established by documents.  It was further held that in view of the complex factual  position, the matter could not be examined by the Consumer Foras  and the appropriate forum was the Civil Court. In Reliance Industries Ltd.’s case (supra), it was held that when  the questions of fraud and cheating are involved in regard to the claim of the complainant, which require thorough scrutiny  including the examination of various documents and supporting oral evidence, the Consumer Fora cannot adjudicate upon the matter.  It was further held that the questions of fraud, cheating and conspiracy  could be  satisfactorily resolved,  by the Civil Court. Similar principle of law, was laid down in M/s Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd.’s case (supra) decided the National Commission.  Since the disputed, complicated and complex questions are involved, as to whether, Annexure R-1, proposal form and declaration bear the signatures of Jai Teging Singh and whether Annexure R-2 –assignment form bear his signatures and the signatures of the complainant or were forged by the Opposite Party No.3. In our opinion, for proving the same elaborate examination of the witnesses, their cross-examination, and a lot of documentary evidence, are required. Not only this, even comparison of the disputed  signatures of Jai Teging Singh on the proposal form, as also, on the assignment notice and disputed signatures of his father, on the said form, is required to be made by the Forensic Expert, with their specimen signatures/standard signatures, to arrive a truth. Such disputed, complex and complicated matters can only be adjudicated upon by a competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction. The principle of law, laid down in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being correct, is accepted.

10.                 Even otherwise, respondent No.1/complainant is not a consumer, qua the appellants, as there is no privity of contract, between them, as the Insurance Policy, prima facie, is in the name of Jai Teging Singh. He is, therefore, the insured person. From the evidence on record, it is evident that the Insurance Policy, was prima facie, purchased by Jai Teging Singh. No reliable evidence was produced by the complainant that he purchased the policy.  Under these circumstances, respondent No.1/complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint.

11.                 In our considered view, the District Forum, did not take into consideration, the aforesaid aspects of the matter, in proper perspective, while passing the order under appeal. The District Forum, thus, acted illegally. The order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside. 

12.                 For the reasons, recorded above, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs. The impugned order is set aside. The complainant may approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, for the adjudication of  complex, disputed and complicated issues/facts, referred to above. 

13.                 Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.                 The file be consigned to Record Room.      

Pronounced.                                                                                   Sd/-

 09.01.2012                                             [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT         

                                                                                                            Sd/-                                                                                                          [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

                                                                                                MEMBER