Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/539/2014

Sh. Jagjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Birla Sun Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Anuradha Gupta

10 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/539/2014
Date of Institution	:	12/08/2014
Date of Decision	:	10/02/2015

 

 

Sh. Jagjeet Singh s/o Sh. Babu Singh aged 59 years r/o H.No.5, Vill. Mullanpur Sodhian P.O. Kurali Distt. Mohali

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

Birla Sun Life Insurance S.C.O. 101, 102 & 103 2^nd Floor, Batra Building Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its Senior Manager.

……Opposite Party

 

 

QUORUM:	P.L.AHUJA	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                               

                       

ARGUED BY:	Ms. Anuradha Gupta, Counsel for complainant
	Sh. Nitin Thatai, Counsel for OP

                       

                 

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh. Jagjeet Singh, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Birla Sun Life Insurance, Opposite Party (hereinafter called the OP), alleging that in the month of December 2012, agent of the OP namely Mr. Shubham visited his place and allured him into purchasing five policies Annexure C-1 to C-5.  He paid total amount of Rs.2,90,000/- for the purchase of the said policies. It has been averred that before issuing the policies, the agent had told the complainant that these were single premium policies and he would get 8% interest + 4% bonus every year and the term of the policies shall be 5 to 7 years.  According to the complainant, when he received the policy documents, he came to know that the policies were not single premium and their term was 20 years. The complainant brought the matter to the notice of the advisor of the OP who gave him an undated letter Annexure C-6 stating that his request for change of term of policy had been accepted. However, when the complainant again got a call from the office of the OP to deposit the next premium he wrote a letter Annexure C-7 to the OP.  According to the complainant, he never opted for policies for the term of 20 years and the OP has cheated and allured him to purchase the policies on misrepresentation of facts. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. 
2.         In its written reply by way of affidavit, OP has taken a number of preliminary objections including that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e. Sh. Shubham and that complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as disputed questions of facts are involved. It has been contended that since serious allegations of cheating and allurement have been levelled by the complainant against the OP, therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.  It has been averred that the complainant had submitted five proposals/ applications to the OP which were accepted on the standard rates based on the information provided by him and consequently five policies were issued. It has been contended that the complainant is a graduate and is an educated person who signed all the proposal forms in English after understanding the features of the proposal form. It has been pleaded that the policy documents delivered to the complainant/LA provided a period of 15 days within which he could have returned the policies but he failed to exercise the said option. It has been pleaded that the letter Annexure C-6 is a fake document.   Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 
3.         In his rejoinder, the complainant has controverted the stand of the OP and reiterated his own. It has been averred that the OP obtained signatures on blank paper form insuring that the agent would fill the form correctly but he failed to do so and twisted the facts in favour of the OP and did not complete the necessary formalities as prescribed by IRDA.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by both sides and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties. 
6.         At the outset, it is pertinent that as per allegations of the complainant, one Mr. Shubham, an agent visited his place and allured him to purchase and got issued 5 policies (Annexure C-1 to C-5). Furthermore, he has alleged that Mr. Shubham told him that these were single premium policies and he would get 8% interest + 4% bonus every year and the term of the policies shall be 5 to 7 years.  However, strangely enough Mr. Shubham has not been impleaded as a party in this complaint by the complainant. We feel that the presence of Mr. Shubham is necessary for effectually and completely deciding the controversies involved in the complaint,  therefore, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.
7.         Secondly, a bare perusal of the copies of the application forms of the five policies, detailed below, reveal that all the policies were issued on different dates :-

	Policy No.	005934458	005922239	005922070	005930608	005930896
	Application ID	A47529502	A47529534	A47529521	A47529504	A47529501
	Application date	24.01.2013	15.01.2013	15.01.2013	21.01.2013	21.01.2013
	Policy issue date	28.01.2013	27.01.2013	07.02.2013	25.01.2013	24.01.2013
	Life assured	SINGH BHAVNEET	SINGH JAGJIT	SINGH BHAVNEET	SINGH BHAVNEET	SINGH BHAVNEET
	Sum assured	Rs.13,94,349/-	Rs.02,02,080/-	Rs.5,55,161/-	Rs.8,36,500/-	Rs.15,15,600/-
	Type of plan	Vision plan	Bachat Endowment plan	Vision Plan	Vision Plan	Bachat Endowment Plan
	Unit/Linked/ Traditional type	Traditional	Traditional	Traditional	Traditional	Traditional
	Policy billing frequency/premium frequency	Annual	Annual	Annual	Annual	Annual
	Gross annual premium/premium installment	Rs.75,002.03	Rs.40,416.00	Rs.30,000.90	Rs.44,995.34	Rs.1,01,040/-
	XXX	XX	XXX	XXX	XXX	XXX
	Total premium paid	Rs.75,000.01	Rs.39,998.26	Rs.30,000.90	Rs.44,995.34	Rs.99,995.65

A perusal of copy of application from of application No.A47529502 (Ex.R-2) reveals that the policy term is 75 years, pay term is 20 years and the payment mode is annual. Copy of the application form No.A47529534 (Ex.R-3) shows that the policy term is 20 years, pay term is 20 years and the payment mode is annual.  Copy of the application form No.A47529521 (Ex.R-4) shows that the policy term is 75 years, pay term is 20 years and the payment mode is annual. Copy of the application form No.A47529504 (Ex.R-5) shows that the policy term is 75 years, pay term is 20 years and the payment mode is annual. Copy of the application form No.A47529501 (Ex.R-6) shows that the policy term is 20 years, pay term is 20 years and the payment mode is annual.  The complainant is a graduate and an educated person and it cannot be said that he affixed his signatures on the proposal forms in English without understanding the features of the policies. Significantly, four proposal forms were signed by the life assured as well as the proposer i.e. the complainant. One proposal form No.A47529534 was signed by the complainant only because he was the life assured and in the remaining proposal forms, Mr. Bhavneet Singh is the life assured and the proposal forms also bear his signatures. In M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s Agarwal Steel-2010(1) SCC 83 it has been held by the Honble Apex court that when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted.

8.         When the above said objection was raised by the OP in its written statement, the complainant took a plea in the rejoinder that the OP had obtained his signatures on blank paper form insuring that the agent will fill the form correctly but he failed to do so and twisted the facts in favour of the OP and did not complete the necessary formalities as prescribed by IRDA. Importantly, the complainant has alleged that the OP has cheated him and allured him to purchase the abovementioned policies on the misrepresentation of facts. The complainant has also pleaded that he never opted for the policies for term of 20 years but it was indicated to him that the policies were single premium policies and the term of the policies shall be 5 – 7 years.  Thus, as per allegations of the complainant, he is a victim of cheating and fraud. Furthermore, the complainant has produced one undated letter Annexure C-6 and has contended that the advisor of the OP gave the said letter to him stating that his request for change of term of policy to single premium has been accepted. However, the OP has specifically pleaded in its written reply that Annexure C-6 is a fake and forged document and has not been issued by it.  Thus, this complaint involves questions of fraud, cheating and forgery of a document. 
9.         Our own Honble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh in First Appeal No.255 of 2014-Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Mohinder Kumar Chopra in para 17 observed as under :-

                “17.  ……. 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. 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 seeking the reliefs in the Court of competent Jurisdiction. Feeling aggrieved, 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 Civil Appeal bearing No.4091 of 2006, in the Honble Supreme Court. The Honble 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. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case.”

10.         In view of the law laid down by the Honble National Commission and the Honble Supreme Court as mentioned in the above ruling, in this case also since the proceedings before this Forum are summary in nature, and the questions of fraud, cheating and forgery are involved, which require thorough scrutiny including examination of various documents and supporting oral evidence, this Forum cannot adjudicate upon the matter. The questions involved in this complaint can be satisfactorily resolved by the Civil Court.
11.         As per the case of the complainant Mr. Shubham was the agent of the OP but it has been rightly contended by the learned counsel for the OP that the Insurance Company is not liable/responsible for any assurance, promise or allurement given by the agent unless and until the same is given in writing.  An insurance agent is a facilitator between the Insurance Company and the prospective policy purchaser. He is an agent of the consumer as well as the Insurance Company and is not the exclusive agent of the Insurance Company. Therefore, he cannot bind the Insurance Company alone.
12.         It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that since the complainant was a retired person, he could not pay the premium of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum and the agent was duty bound to take income proof from the complainant but the same was taken only in two policies.  However, the learned counsel for the OP has argued that income proof was required for policies having premium of more than Rs.1,00,000/-. The complainant has not produced any such instructions of the IRDA in accordance with which the agent was required to take income proof from the complainant in each and every policy.  At any rate, again if any fraud has been played by the OP or the agent upon the complainant, that cannot be adjudicated in the summary proceedings before this Forum.
13.         For the reasons recorded above, since the questions involved in this complaint are complex and complicated, the same are beyond the purview of the summary jurisdiction of this Forum, therefore, the complaint is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.  However, it is made clear that the complainant shall be at liberty to get the issues involved in this complaint resolved in the Civil Court or any other appropriate Forum.
14.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
10.02.2015	[Surjeet Kaur]	[P. L. Ahuja]
hg	Member	President