Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/475/2014

Gurpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Amarjit Singh Gill

03 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/475/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	15/07/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	03/03/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Gurpreet Singh son of Shri Jagbir Singh, resident of House No. 1494-A, Garden Colony, (902, Sector 11), Near Civil Hospital, Kharar, Distt. Ropar, Punjab–140301.

 …………… Complainant.

Vs

 

[1]  Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Limited, Sector 9, Chandigarh, now shifted to SCO No.226-227, 2^nd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

 

[2]  Amitabh Verma, Chief Operating Officer, Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Limited, One India Bulls Center, Tower-1, 15^th Floor, Jupiter Mill Compound,841, S.B. Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai – 400 013.

 

[3]  Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Limited, One India Bulls Center, Tower-1, 15^th Floor, Jupiter Mill Compound,841, S.B. Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai – 400 013, through its Chairman & Managing Director.

 

[4]  Grievance Officer, Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Limited, One India Bulls Center, Tower-1, 15^th Floor, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, S.B. Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai – 400 013, through its Grievances Officer.

……………  Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    SMT.SURJEET KAUR                PRESIDING MEMBER

           SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA         MEMBER

For Complainant	:	Sh. A.S. Gill, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties	:	Sh. Nitin Thatai, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

          Succinctly put, the Complainant purchased one Unit Linked Insurance Policy from the Opposite Parties under ‘Free Look’ option for Rs.35,980/- in Dec. 2012. However, on receipt of the Policy No. 005896399 dated 8.1.2013, the Complainant found that he was issued BSLI ‘Bachat Money Back’ a saving plan Non-Linked Policy instead of Unit Linked Policy. The Complainant also noticed that the application dated 20.12.2012 attached with the Policy was neither filled in his handwriting nor it bears his signatures. Accordingly, he submitted a letter on 1.2.2013 (Annexure C-2) for cancellation of the policy in question, but the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 8.2.2013 (Annexure C-3) showed their inability to cancel the same on the ground that the request for cancellation was sent after lapse of 15 days period from the date of receipt of the policy. Thereafter, the Complainant submitted a letter dated 29.09.2013 to Opposite Party No.1 highlighting that the application dated 20.12.2012 was not filled and signed by him and someone had faked his signatures, in response whereof the Opposite Parties replied that investigations were underway and they would response at the earliest. When even after constant follow up, there was no positive headway and the grievance of the Complainant remained unresolved, alleging the said acts to be deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint before this Forum.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Parties in their joint reply have pleaded that the Complainant had submitted a proposal/ application dated 20.12.2012 (Ex.R-2) for the purchase of BSLI Bachat Money Back Policy. The proposal was accepted on the standard rates based on the information provided and consequently a policy bearing No. 005896399 dated 8.1.2013 was issued. The copy of the policy was duly received by the Complainant. Pursuant whereof, the Complainant had an option of returning the policy, within a period of 15 days, but he failed to exercise the said option and approached the answering Opposite Parties after expiry of the said period, hence he cannot wriggle out of the terms & conditions of the Policy. It has been asserted that as and when the Complainant had been writing letters to the Opposite Parties, the same were adequately replied. It has been submitted that as the Complainant had specifically denied his signatures on the proposal and termed it to be a fake document, therefore, the present Complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since allegations of forgery are being levelled. It has been pleaded that the Complainant had already taken all the benefits of the policy for the period for which he had paid the premium. When once the Complainant had utilized the policy for which he had given the premium, he has no legal right to claim the refund. Moreover, the policy had already been lapsed due to non-payment of premium for the subsequent year within the stipulated period. All other allegations made in the Complaint have been denied and pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire documents on record.

 

5.      After considering the rival contentions, it is observed that the Complainant in his Complaint has levelled allegations of making his fake/ fraudulent signatures by the Opposite Parties, in Para Nos.4 and 6 of the Complaint. Further, the Complainant has specifically alleged that the original application filled in and signed by him has been replaced by a fake application.  In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Munimahesh Patel 2006 (2) CPC 668 (SC), Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. I (1998) CPJ 13, a case decided by a four Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and  M/s Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd. Vs United Commercial Bank III (1992) CPJ 50, a case decided by a three member Bench of  the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, 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.  The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., filed Civil Appeal bearing No.4091 of 2006, in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the proceedings, before the Commission were 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 Fora, 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 forgery/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 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

 

6.      We are of the concerted view that the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Since in the instant case, the disputed and complicated questions of fact and law are involved and for proving the allegations of the Complainant, thorough analysis of voluminous documents and elaborate examination of the witnesses and their cross examination is required, we feel that the case cannot be adjudicated upon by this Forum, proceedings before which are summary in nature.

 

7.      For the reasons recorded above, we find that this Complaint before this Forum is not maintainable and the issues involved in the Complaint can be decided by the Civil Court. Consequently, the Complaint is dismissed, with liberty to the Complainant to seek his remedy before the Civil Court/ appropriate Forum. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

 

8.      In terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industries (1995) 3 SCC 583, the Complainant may seek condonation of delay, if any, caused by present proceedings, by moving an appropriate application before the appropriate Court/Forum, if so advised.

 

9.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

03^rd March, 2016                                          

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER