Complainant has a Savings Bank Account (No 910010015728787) to Axis Bank (O.P-No-1). The employees of the O.P no 1, Sri Sudipta Roy (OP no- 2) and Sri Sonku Bhattacharya (O P No-3) approached the complainant for purchase of Mutual Fund from Max life Insurance (O.P- No-4).  Being convinced by the words of the O.P-No-2 and 3 the complainant agreed to invest in Mutual Fund marketed and managed by AXIS Bank and accordingly signed the proposal form on 24-09-2018 along with several other documents on good faith as per advice of the OP nos 2 and 3.Online forms were also filled up by the OP nos 2 and 3. But, subsequently the complainant was surprised to find out that the proposal form was not for Mutual fund but for Max Life Insurance. (Annexure 2. Photo Copy of Proposal Form-Annexure to Electronic Application). After that the complainant personally met with O.P-No-1 and informed him of false selling by the O.P.no.2 and O.P no.3 and expressed his unwillingness to purchase the Policy of the OP.no.4 which was an Insurance Policy and not a Mutual Fund marketed and managed by AXIS Bank Ltd.On 28-09.2018, the complainant submitted a letter for cancellation of proposal to O.P-No-1. and to credit the amount to Account No. 910010015728787. But action with regard to cancellation of proposal was not taken by the O.P. no.1,nor did the O.P.s no 2 and 3 intimate the matter to the complainant.(Annexure 4- Photo Copy letter for cancellation of proposal dated 28-09-2018 to O.P.no.1).As a result, insurance policy was issued against the proposal and Policy Deed was generated in favour of the complainant and was sent to the address of the complainant on 08-10-2018 The complainant received the Policy Deed no.701802191 (Annexure 5 -Photo Copy of Policy Deed no.701802191).That thereafter the complainant as per the direction and advice of the O.P no. 2 and 3, on 09 10-2018, submitted a letter for cancellation of Policy during cooling off along with the original Policy Deed and asked the O.P. no. 1 to refund the premium amount to the Bank Account No.910010015728787. But action with regard to cancellation of Policy was not taken by the O.P-No-1, neither the O.P.s no.2 nor 3 intimate the matter to the complainant nor was any intimation received from the O.P no 4. (Annexure 6 - Photo Copy letter for Cancellation of Policy dated 09-10-2018 to O.P.no.1). That the complainant again on 15-12-2018 and 28-12-2018 went to the OP no.-I and submitted in writing for cancellation of the Policy no.701802191. (Annexure 7 -Photo Copy letters to O.P.no.l dated 15-12-2018). After that several initiatives was taken by the complainant for cancelation of the alleged insurance policy. After finding no other alternative the complainant approached the Assistant Director, Directorate of Consumer Affairs and Fair Businesses Practices, Regional Office, Jalpaiguri with his grievances on 18-03-2019 and complaint no 894/67/FS/18-19 was duly registered. The O.P no 1 represented by his Advocate came to the said Office once in three call but the matter could not settled due to the reluctance of the OP no.1. Finally the matter was dropped without any result and the complainant was  directed to approach the Forum for redress (Annexure 12 - Photo Copy of Complaint dated 18-03-2019 along with Notices sent to the OP no.1 and Order Sheets). That the complainant was taken aback on 06-06-2019 when the complainant received a packet from the O.P no 4 sent through DTDC Courier Inside the packet the complainant found the Original Policy Deed no 701802191 which was re sent by the O.P no.4 to the complainant on 22-05-2019 (Annexure 13 - photo copy of front side of envelop received by the complainant on 06 - 06 -2019）. The complainant thereafter on 27-07-2019 sent representation by post and again on 29-07-2019 over email to the O.P. no l and the O.P. no 4 as to why the Original Policy Deed no 701802191 was sent back and not cancelled and why the money not refunded. But no reply was received from the O.P. no. 1 and 4. (Annexure 14 - Photo Copy of Representations dated 27.07. 2019 and 29-07-2019 sent to the O.P. no. 1 and the O.P no.4). According to the complainant he is a bonafide customer of the O.Ps having invested his hard earned money at the instance of the O.P.s but the O.Ps have taken advantage of the trust repose by the complainant and having gained dominion thereby.  The O.P.s have misappropriated Rs. 1,00,000/- which the O.P's have procured from the complainant by giving him false assurances which tantamount to deficiency in service and thereby have cheated the complainant deliberately with full knowledge of the overt acts on their part causing enormous harassments to the complainant resulting in endless pain and agony being suffered by the complainant . At last the complainant files the present case before this commission and prays the following reliefs as under.

 Direction to the O.P.s to initiate process and Cancel Policy no.701802191dated 30-09-2018 issued by the O.P.no.4 against Proposal No.701802191 dated 24-09-2018 at the instance of the O.P.no.2 and 3, who are employees of the O.P. no.1, who on the other hand is the Corporate Agent of O.P.no.4.Refund the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant in his Savings Bank Account No.910010015728787 at AXIS Bank Ltd., Jalpaiguri Branch along with accrued interest till the date of cancellation and refund.

II. Direction to the O.P.s to pay compensation to the complainant the amount of Rs, 50,000/- towards the harassment caused mental agony and pain suffered by the complainant.

III. Direction to the O P.to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.20,000/- towards the cost of the present litigation.

IV. Direction to the Op to pay to the complainant the interest accrued on the awarded amount @ 12% calculated P.A from the date of cause of action till actual realization.

V. Any other relief, the Hon'ble Forum further pleased to award.

Total Claim Rs 1, 70,000/-

List of Documents Filed by the Complainant:

Annexure 1 - Photo Copy of Passbook appertaining to Savings BankAccount No.910010015728787

Annexure 2 - Photo Copy of Proposal Form-Annexure to Electronic Application (apage)

Annexure 3 – Printed Copy of the message 28-09-2018)

Annexure 4 - Photo Copy letter for cancellation of proposal dated 28-09-2018 to O.P.no.1 Annexure 5 - Photo Copy of Policy Deed no. 701802191 (4016)

Annexure 6 - Photo Copy letter for Cancellation of Policy dated 09-10- 2018 to O.P.no.1

Annexure 7 - Photo Copy letters to O.P. no.1 dated 15-12-2018 and 28-12-2018

Annexure 8 - Photo Copy Free look Cancellation Form and cancelled cheque leaf bearing no. 159064 of the AXIS Bank Ltd.

Annexure 9 - Printed Copy of the mail to helpdesk@maxlifeinsurance.com regarding cancellation of policy with 6 attachments.

Annexure 10 － Printed Copy of the mail to kuntal.sarkar@maxlifeinsurance.com（Kolkata） and to Supriya.mitra@max1ifeinsurancecom (Siliguri) dated 01- 03-2019 and to Jalpaiguribranchhead@axisbank.comdated 04-03-2019.

Annexure 11 - Photo Copy of Notice to the O.P. no.1 dated 11-03-2019.

Annexure 12- Photo Copy of Complaint dated 18-03-2019 along with Notices sent to the O.P. no.1 and Order Sheets (9 pag)

Annexure 13 - Photo Copy of front side of envelop received by the complainant on 06-06-2019

Annexure 14 – Photo Copy of Representations dated 27-07-2019 and 29-07-2019 sent to the O.P. no.l and the O.P. no.4.

Notice upon all the opposite parties was duly served. All the opposite parties files hazira but, except the O.P-4 no other opposite party files written version. O.P -4 only files W.V. O.P-No-1, 2&3 avoided the proceedings of this commission. This case is precede Ex-parte against O.P-No-1, 2 & 3 after giving several opportunities to them and decided on merit against O.P-No-4.

Decisions with reasons

Complainant is a consumer of the O.Ps. The complainant has both the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction for filing the case before this commission. These points are never challenged by the OPs.

On 27th September 2019 the O.P No-1 (Angshuman Das, Branch Head, Axis Bank, Jalpaiguri Branch) appear before this commission through lawyer by filing VOKALATNAMA. In repeated times learned representative of O.P number 1, 2 and 3 files different petitions on different grounds. On dated 24/03/2022 Mr .Pradipta Banerjee, BRANCH HEAD OF AXIS BANK LTD, JALPAIGURI BRANCH (O.P-No-1), appear before this commission and files a petition for resolve the matter through mediation. We allow the petition of O.P-No-1. But, due to the laxity of the O.P-No-1 the mediation initiative was failed. We also make an effort to solve the case through LOK ADALAT on 12/11/2022. But, this initiative also fails. The upper mention facts clearly show that the O.P-No-1 is well known about the facts of the case. The O.P-No-2 &3 are the employees of O.P-No-1. It is to be mentioned that in this commission there are so many cases are filed against this O.P-No-1 (Axis Bank). In most of the cases they are intentionally avoiding the adjudication procedure by knowing the facts and circumstances.

In a very significant judgment with far reaching consequences, the THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA in a learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Pradeep Kumar And Anr. vs Post Master General and Ors in Civil Appeal No. 8775-8776 of 2016 delivered as recently as on February 7, 2022 held that once it is established that fraud or any wrongful act was perpetrated by an employee of a post/bank office during the course of their employment, the post/bank office would be vicariously liable for the wrongful act of such employee. The Supreme Court clarified that the post office is entitled to proceed against the concerned officer, but the same would not absolve them from their liability.

The complainant approached the Assistant Director, Directorate of Consumer Affairs and Fair Businesses Practices, Regional Office, Jalpaiguri with his grievances on 11/04/2019. A complaint no. 894/67/FS/ 18-19 was duly registered. After that following dates are allotted (10/05/2019, 11/07/2019, 16/07/2019 and 25/07/2019) for resolve the problem between the parties.  The following part / meeting minutes of the tripartite meeting show the arrogance of O.P.No-1.

“ the representative of the O.P informed verbally that Max Life insurance  had apprised that unless cant order directing Max Life Insurance or Axis bank to refund the money to the tune of Rs. 100000/- (Rupees One lakh) only to the complainant is given, that (O.P) cant refund the same”

The upper mention fact shows that the complainant took many possible initiatives for resolve the matter but the OPs force him to approach in this commission and go through this litigation process.

According to the available documents it reflect that the complainant sign the proposal form for the alleged Max Life Insurance policy on 24/09/2018. After only four days on 28/09/2018 the complainant submits a written unwillingness letter / application for free look of insurance policy (Cancellation of Proposal No- 701802191 of Samar Kumar Brahma) to the Chief Manager, axis bank ltd, Jalpaiguri. The letter was duly received by the O.P-1 by giving seal and sign in received copy of the same. After that several correspondence are made between the complainant and O.P- 1.But, the O.P -1 never took any initiative to provide good service to the insurance customer after selling the product as commercial/ corporate insurance agent.

Complaint case in brief is that he invested his hard earned money to O.P-No-4 through O.P-1.  The O.P-No-2&3 are the employee of O.P-No-1. Complainant is initially a customer of O.p-No-1 and also become a customer of O.P-No-4 through O.P-No-1. The Dilemma faced by the  complainant is only for the O.P No-1, 2&3. Opposite party number 1 AXIS Bank has a corporate identity .Being an insurance agent/adviser of the complement they did nothing as and when complainant duly communicate with AXIS Bank about the alleged problem. Being an insurance agent AXIS Bank never feels to act according to the IRDA guideline for the insurance agents. OP number 4 is totally silent about their appointed insurance agent AXIS Bank. The mala fide nexus between both the opposite parties cannot be ruled out. Even after properly knowing the fact AXIS Bank and their employees are (O.P-1, 2&3) never felt contest the matter for proper adjudication of the case.

            Now a days, it is an open secret that insurance agents, with a view to achieving their sales targets, often resort to falsehood and the degree of such practice has reached such an extent that the IRDA has to take a protective step by formulating Protection of Policyholders' Interest Regulations. Unfortunately, in spite of all efforts, the practice still continues unchanged.

The responsibilities of a commercial insurance agent to the insured person include:

• Providing accurate and timely information about the insurance policy. This includes explaining the terms of the policy, the coverage offered, and any exclusions or limitations.
• Helping the insured person choose the right coverage for their needs. This involves understanding the insured person's business and the risks they face.
• Negotiating with the insurance company on behalf of the insured person. This includes working to get the best possible terms and coverage for the insured person.
• Assisting the insured person with claims. This includes filing claims, providing documentation, and following up with the insurance company.
• Keeping the insured person informed about their insurance coverage. This includes notifying them of any changes to the policy or the insurance company.
•  

In addition to these responsibilities, a commercial insurance agent should also be:

• Competent and knowledgeable about insurance. They should be able to understand the different types of insurance policies available and the coverage they offer.                                                              

• Ethical and trustworthy. They should act in the best interests of the insured person and put their needs first.
• Communicative and responsive. They should be able to communicate effectively with the insured person and promptly answer their questions.
• Helping the insured person understand their risk exposure. This involves identifying the potential risks that the insured person's business faces and assessing the likelihood and severity of those risks.
• Recommending risk management strategies. This involves helping the insured person to reduce their risk exposure by implementing safety procedures, training employees, and using safety equipment.
• Providing ongoing support to the insured person. This includes answering questions, reviewing the policy, and helping to file claims.

The Consumer Protection Act defines deficiency of service as "any act or omission on the part of the supplier which causes any loss or injury to the consumer." This includes acts or omissions that are: Negligent, Unfair, Unreasonable, Deceptive etc.

The Consumer Protection Act also defines unfair trade practices as "any act or omission that, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or services, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice." This includes practices that are: Misleading, Deceitful, Abusive, Aggressive etc.

Here are some recent honorable Supreme Court cases against commercial insurance agents with case numbers:

Shree Ambica Medical Stores & Ors vs. The Surat People's Co-operative Bank Limited & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 562 of 2020)

Reliance Life Insurance v. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod (Civil Appeal No. 596 of 2021)

In these cases, the Supreme Court has held that commercial insurance agents have a duty to act in the best interests of their clients and to provide them with accurate and timely information about their insurance policies. The Court has also held that commercial insurance agents can be held liable for damages if they fail to meet these obligations.

These cases are important because they clarify the legal obligations of commercial insurance agents and provide guidance to consumers who may have been the victim of unfair or deceptive practices by an insurance agent.

In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, we are of the considered view that the policy terms and conditions were not properly explained to the Complainant. The policy, therefore, was a proven mis-sale by the O.P-No-1, 2&3 on behalf of O.P-No-4. In their written version, Point No-3, the O.P-No-4. Submit the following

• O.P-No-1 is the commercial/ corporate insurance agent of O.P-No-4 and the branch manager (O.P-No-1) authorized for marketing of insurance product on behalf of them.
• The .P-No-4 is ready to cancel the policy and refund the premium to the complainant.
• Acknowledged the mis-selling of insurance policy to the complainant.

As and when the insurance company (O.P-No-4) acknowledged the mis-selling of insurance policy to the complainant by their commercial/ corporate insurance agent (O.P-No-1, 2&3) the case of the complainant is almost proved against the opposite parties. There is no doubt that due to the negligence of the O.P-No-1 the complainant is unable to avail the “FREE LOOK PERIOD” for cancelation of the alleged insurance policy. Considering the contentions made in the complaint and also the evidence in support of such contentions as sworn by the complainant and also the copy of documents filed we find that the Complainant has proved his case. There is no evidence to the contrary by the Opposite Party and since there is no evidence contradicting the evidence of the Complainant we find that the Complainant’s case is to be believed. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 would be jointly and severally liable for the deficiency of service, unfair trade practice and mental pain and agony cause to the complainant.

Hence, we find that the Complainant has successfully proved her case and is entitled to get the decree as prayed for. We are allowing the consumer case by issuing the following directions.

1. O.P-No- 4 would be liable to pay the invested amount Rs.100000/-(Rupees One lakh only) along with 7% simple interest per annum from 29/09/2018 till the date of payment to the complainant.
2. O.P- Nos. 1, 2 and 3 would be jointly and severally liable to pay the Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only as compensation for harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
3. O.P No-1 is to pay Rs. 1, 00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) to the consumer legal aid account of this commission.
4. Above payments shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order. Failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of order till its realization. Complainant is given liberty to execute the order as per law if not paid by the OPs. .

Let a copy of the order be sent / supplied at free of cost to the parties concerned.

The Final Order will be available in the following