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

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

[1]  Raj Kapur son of Sh. Ram Rakha Kapoor, resident of House No. 1668, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh.

[2]  Karan Kapur son of Sh. Raj Kapur, resident of House No. 1668, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh.

[3]  Sneh Kapur wife of Sh. Raj Kapur, resident of House No. 1668, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh.

              ---Complainants

Vs

[1]  Birla Sun Life Insurance, SCO No. 149-150, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160009, through its Grievance Officer.

[2]  Endeavour Insurance Broking Pvt. Limited, B-112, Lower Ground Floor, Shivalik Malviya Nagar, New Delhi – 110017.

     Second address:-

     NDM-2, 3^rd Floor, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi – 34.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:    MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA               PRESIDING MEMBER

           SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU        MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Tarundeep S. Khaira, Counsel for Complainants.

Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.

Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.        This complaint relates to alleged unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties for inducing the Complainants to invest in three insurance policies by making false promises.

          As per the Complainants, Complainant No.1 was approached by the agents of the Opposite Parties with offers to earn huge profits by investing his money with them. Being attracted towards the returns offered by the Opposite Parties, Complainant No.1 parted with a sum of Rs.2,97,000/- for three policies issued in his name. In one policy, the life assured was the Complainant himself with his wife Mrs.Sneh Kapur as nominee. While in the other policies the life assured was his son with his wife Mrs.Sneh Kapur as nominee in one policy. Details of the policies are as under: -

          The Complainants have stated that Complainant No.1 was told by the agents of the Opposite Parties that as Opposite Party No.1 had earned huge profits, it wanted to share the same with its ‘A’ category customers. Complainant No.1 was told that in case he invested with Opposite Party No.1, he would be given a life time pension of Rs.37,500/- for every Rs.1.00 lac invested. The Complainant No.1’s anxious query of not being an ‘A’ category customer was tactically handled by the Opposite Parties and he was assured that he would be given all the benefits as promised.

          As the Complainant No.1 had been confined to bed for sometime and was in dire need of money, he has stated that he was brain washed into believing the offers and invested his money with the Opposite Parties. The amount was invested in March, 2011 and incentives were promised to be given by May, 2011. 

          The Complainant No.1 has also mentioned that he had been similarly induced to invest Rs.1,14,000/- with Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company in a similar situation, but when he had raised a hue and cry, the amount had been refunded. Expecting the same relief from the Opposite Parties, the Complainant No.1 took up the matter with them. Not being satisfied with the response of the Opposite Parties, the Complainants have filed the present complaint with the allegations that the Opposite Parties be directed to close the three Policies and refund the amount of premium of Rs.2,97,000/- and also to pay compensation for the harassment caused to the Complainants.

          It is also stated in the complaint that the money was paid to the Opposite Parties after taking loan against fixed deposits. Initially, only one Policy was taken but the Opposite Party induced the Complainant to take two new policies in the name of the wife and son with the allurement of incentives.

          The Complainant No.1 has admitted the receipt of Policies from the Opposite Parties. He has also stated that when the incentives were not received, he took up the matter with the agents of the Opposite Parties, but got no relief.   

          The Complainant No.1 has also stated that he has also invested another Rs.2,00,000/- in Future Generalli Insurance Co. on the advice of the agents of Opposite Parties. Alleging that the modus-operandi of the Opposite Parties is a clear fraud committed on them, the Complainants have filed the instant complaint with the prayer for refund and compensation already given above.

2.        Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte on 09.01.2012.

3.        The Opposite Party No.1 in reply has taken preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint needs dismissal as the Complainants have suppressed material facts from this Forum. The Complainants had willfully and knowingly opted for the Policies and when unable to pay the premium, the entire blame game started. There is not a single allegation of either deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, except the simple averment of not wanting to pay for wrong policies.

          Opposite Party No.1 has pleaded that the Complainant had submitted three applications for “BSLI Bachat Money Back Plan Term 20 Pay 20” policies, with annual mode of payment. The policy holder had also signed all the relevant documents and the declaration to the effect that he had read and understood the documents. He was also made aware of all the terms and conditions for withdrawal and surrender as well as payments of premium. The Complainant did not avail the option of return of policy in the free look period and hence, refund of full amount by cancellation of the policy within the free look period is not possible now. Regarding the surrender value, the Opposite Party No.1 has stated that the policy shall have a surrender value only after 03 full year installment of premiums have been paid.

          In reply to the allegations of fraud and cheating, Opposite Party No.1 has stated that cases of fraud and cheating are not adjudicable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Further, persons against whom allegations of fraud have been made have not been made a party to the dispute. According to the Opposite Party No.1, the dispute of the Complainant mainly revolves around non-payment of incentives by the persons from whom the policies were allegedly done and not in respect of misrepresentation of policy.        

          On merits, Opposite Party No.1 has admitted the issuance of the first policy, as well as two subsequent policies applied for. There was no provision for paying any incentives by Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant. Moreover, the person, who had made such offers, if any, has not been made a party to the complaint. Also, the policy holder/ life assured/ Complainant had the option to cancel the policies in the free look period, but the option was not exercised. The averments about the policies issued by Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. and Future Generalli Insurance Co. have no relevance to the complaint. Opposite Party No.1 has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.        We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 and have perused the record.

6.        The case of the Complainants is that the Opposite Parties have induced Complainant No.1 to invest his hard earned money by showing him the attractive benefit of life time earning of Rs.37,500/- on payment of every Rs.1,00,000/- invested with the Opposite Parties. However, it is not mentioned anywhere whether this earning is one time, monthly or annually. The Complainant No.1 has stated that he was assured by the Opposite Parties by their polite and courteous behavior as he was confined to bed and induced to part with Rs.2.97,000/-. This amount was given by the Complainant No.1 from his hard earned savings, as well as fixed deposits.         

7.        The Complainant No.1 has submitted that after receiving the policies, he did not exercise the option of asking for refund and cancellation of the policies within the free look period. The Complainant No.1 has also stated that when he realized that all incentives offered by the Opposite Parties were not forthcoming, he made representation to them to refund the amount invested. In support of his contentions, the Complainant No.1 has given the example of investment in Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co., wherein the amount invested was refunded to him, when he raised hue and cry. As the Opposite Parties have not complied with the request of the Complainant, he has chosen to file the present complaint with the allegations of fraud and cheating and unfair trade practice, as he has not been given the benefit allegedly promised. The Complainant No.1 has further submitted that he has invested another amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in Future Generalli Insurance Co. on the asking of the agents of the Opposite Parties.

8.        Opposite Party No.1 in reply to the contentions of the Complainants about fraud and cheating have taken the specific stand that such allegations are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Opposite Party No.1 has also contended that the Complainant No.1 is well aware about the terms and conditions of the policies when he signed the proposal forms. Also, as correctly pointed out by the Opposite Party the Complainants have not taken the benefit of free look period available to them on receipt of the policies. The afterthought about asking for refund is apparently due to non-receipt of incentives, alleged to have been promised by the agents of the Opposite Parties to the Complainant No.1; none of whom are parties to the instant complaint.            

9.        It is a very unfortunate situation, where a person has invested a sum of Rs.2,97,000/- with the expectancy of a pension of Rs.37,500/- throughout his life, without there being any documentary proof to substantiate this promised benefit. Opposite Party No.1 has denied making any such promise to the Complainant No.1. It seems that the Complainant No.1 while being confined to bed was seeking to make quick profits by investing in various insurance companies to earn profits on the attractive offers being given to him by the agents of the insurance companies. He has even been refunded the amount given to Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company. After having received this amount, Complainant No.1 feels entitled to the amount invested with the Opposite Parties also.

10.       A look at the policies placed on record by the Complainant as well as the Opposite Party No.1, shows that the policies were issued during April-May, 2011 with date of maturity as April-May, 2031. The survival benefit is payable in the 5^th, 10^th and 15^th year. Surrender benefit of 30% is payable after 3^rd year, 40% after 4^th year, 50% after 5^th year and so on. The policies today are only 1 year old and there is no condition mentioned on the policies for refund of any amount at this early date. Even the proposal forms signed by the Complainant and placed on record by both the parties; do not contain any information or clause for refund of the complete amount after one year of receipt of first premium. The only benefit available to the Complainants of exercising the option of refund within the free look period has not been availed. The Complainant No.1 has himself admitted that he did not utilize this benefit as he was waiting to receive the incentives against the policies.

11.       In the given situation, this Forum cannot find ground to award the relief claimed. If the policies are closed immediately the amount invested cannot be refunded. The relief regarding compensation for harassment is not substantiated by evidence. Also, loss of interest on F.D’s besides other losses claimed can also not be awarded. The complaint against Opposite Party No.1 is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. However, the Policies issued by the Opposite Parties still continue to be alive and operative as per terms and conditions laid out. The Complainant is at liberty to approach the Opposite Party No.1 for consideration by the Insurance Company to reschedule the payment plans/ premiums to suit his pocket, if acceptable to them.

12.       As no specific averment has been made against Opposite Party No. 2 regarding any deficiency in service or harassment or even monetary loss to the Complainants, the complaint against them is also dismissed. No costs.     

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

Announced

24^th September, 2012.                                           

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

 PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER