Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant in the first week of August 2013 one Khalid Haider and Nakuleshwar Mukherjee op nos. 2 & 3 representing themselves to be the officers of the Bharati Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and op no.1 came to the office of the complainant in Phoolbagan and requested the complainant to take a short term policy and they represented on behalf of op and assured and induced the complainant to invest Rs. 7,000/- for one year and they further assured that the complaint shall get back a good amount as interest along with the principal of Rs. 7,000/- after one year and relying upon their representation and assurance complainant signed in good faith on several pre-printed papers at the dictation of the nos. 2 & 3 being the representative of the op no.1 and complainant has no such higher education but he read up to class VIII in Hindi Medium and cannot read, write and understand English and complainant can only sign his name in English so complainant only signed as per direction of op nos. 2 & 3 and handed over Rs. 7,000/- on 16.08.2013 in cash to them in the policy term for one year.

          Thereafter on number of occasions complainant visited the op no.1 to enquire about policy documents but the op nos. 2 & 3 and other employees of op no.1on each occasion assured the complainant that the policy document will be delivered to the complainant in due course of time.  Subsequently complainant received one deposit receipt dated 16.08.2013 of Rs. 4,456/- and one first premium receipt for alleged plan Bharati Axa Life Triple Health Insurance Plan from his neighbor and after going through the same the complainant was surprised to know that the alleged policy is for 15 years and the alleged sum assured is Rs. 3,00,000/- and it appeared that op nos. 2 & 3 by misrepresentation and fraud took undue advantage and got the policy done in the name of the complainant without proper intimation and consent of the complainant.

          But ops never informed the complainant that the term of the alleged policy is for 15 years and the sum insured is Rs. 3,00,000/-.  Further it is submitted by the complainant that Rs. 4,456.11 paisawas paid as premium although the complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 7,000/- to the op no.1 through the op nos. 2 & 3 expecting good return after one year term.  Practically the ops were reluctant to look into the grievances of the complainant and the complainant by a letter dated 11.11.2013 addressed to the op no.1 narrated his grievances and prayed for withdrawal/cancellation of the above policy and also prayed for taking suitable action against the op nos. 2 & 3 for misrepresentation and practicing fraud on the complainant.

          Thereafter by an auto generated letter dated 13.11.2013, the Grievance Redressal Cell of the op no.1 informed the complainant that the grievances of the complainant is being addressed by one Mitali Rane, Executive and that they will revert back to the complainant within two weeks.  But surprisingly no result is yet received.  So, there is no gross deficiency and negligence on the part of the service of the ops and also for false representation made by the op nos. 2 & 3 the representative of the complainant and in the above circumstances complainant prayed for relief and for compensation.

          On the other hand op no.1 by filing written statement submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and the entire story is false and fabricated and it is their main submission that as per proposal form but same was prepared and also document along with all copies were sent to the complainant vide Speed Post Courier and it was delivered on 27.08.2013.  The complainant did not file any objection or cancellation within free look period.  So, as per Insurance Policy rules and regulation of the same cannot be entertained and also denied all other allegations of the entire complaint as made by the complainant and complainant only paid Rs. 4,456/- as half-yearly vide cash and op no.1 issued policy No. 5011173639 along with documents and as because insurance contract, the parties are bound by terms and conditions.  But peculiar factor is that op nos.2 & 3 were served notices but they did not turn up.  So, in the circumstances, the case is heard finally for final disposals.

Decision with reasons

          On in depth study of the complaint and written version and also considering the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and further considering the allegation of the complainant against op nos. 2 & 3 we have gathered that op no.1 has not denied the status of op nos. 2 & 3 and it is also proved that the proposal form was not filled up by the complainant because complainant is not so educated and he does not know English and he is Hindi knowing.

          Another factor is that op no.1 has not stated about anything of op nos. 2 & 3 in their written version or has not denied the relationship of op nos. 2 & 3 and so considering that fact we are convinced thatthose op nos. 2 & 3 are nothing but the sales officers of op no.1.  So, invariably it is the duty of op no.1 to disclose why they have not determined the grievance of the complainant when it was made before the op no.1.  But op no.1 is kept silent and stated that it is valid insurance policy etc.  But fact remains there is no such assertion by op no.1 that the application form was filled by the half educated complainant.

          Another fact is that complainant paid Rs. 7,000/- to the op nos. 2 & 3 but against that no doubt there is no denial that op nos. 2 & 3 did not receive it.  But it is found from the document that policy was issued in the name of Sunil Kumar Shaw and Khalid Haider is found as advisor of the op no.1 which is proved.  So, it is clear that Khalid Haider is life advisor of op no.1 misrepresented about the policywhich was intended to be purchased by the complainant.  So the act of life advisor of op no.1 that is Khalid Haider is no doubt unfair trade practice and that was practiced as per consent of op no.1 and advised and considering that fact we are convinced to hold on behalf of op no.1 Khalid Haider the life advisor of op no.1 misguided the complainant and received Rs. 7,000/- but deposited only Rs. 4,456/- as premium and another type of premium was issued.  But in respect of that policy, complainant did not intend to purchase.

          So, it is clear that the life advisor of the op no.1 has been loitering in the market and deceiving the customers in such a manner and it is truth that op no.1 has nothing to say against Khalid Haider for which in the written version op has not challenged the status of Khalid Haider as claimed by the complainant.  Considering all the above fact and circumstances we are convinced to hold that the complainant was deceived by the life advisor of the op no.1 i.e. Khalid Haider op no.2 and the act of op no.2 is nothing but an act on behalf of op no.1.  So, op nos. 1 & 2 are liable for such sort of act and for selling such policy by misrepresentation and in fact complainant had no desire to purchase such a long term policy.

          But it is the common practice of the private insurance company to send their field officers, life advisors, agent to collect premium from the poor section of the people giving them no chance what would be the future payment when the policy shall be preparedby the ops and no doubt such sort of act on the part of the ops is unfair trade practice and truth is that practically in blank form signatures of the complainant was taken by the op nos. 2 & 3 on behalf of op no.1 and they deposited it and complainant was never asked by the op no.1 whether he intended to purchase it whether he filled such application proposal from or not and in view of the above findings we are convinced to hold that complainant has been deceived by the ops though complainant had no intention to long term policy and truth is that he handed over Rs. 7,000/- to life advisor of the op no.1.  But op no.2 misappropriated certain amount and deposited only Rs. 4,456/- and no doubt op no.1 is trying to show that he is honest but they are cheat and their business is to deprive the customers through their cheat life advisor agent etc. and for which in the written version op no.1 has not stated anything about op no.2 and about their conduct because cheat advisors are deputed by the op no.1 for the purpose of trapping the rural market of the innocent to cheat the poorer section of people who have their no qualification and it is the practice of the insurance company and in view of the above fact and circumstances we are convinced to hold that all the allegations made by the complainant against the ops are proved that the life advisor of the op no.1 received Rs. 7,000/- collected only signatures in blank forms that had been converted in to disputed policy document and so the act of the ops are no doubt deceitful act and for which op nos. 1 & 2 shall have to pay Rs. 7,000/- to the complainant immediately by cancelling the said insurance policy and in this regard for harassing the complainant in such a manner, op nos. 1 & 2 shall have to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and for contesting the case, complainant has spent huge money for which the ops shall have to pay litigation cost to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- also.

          Accordingly, the complaint succeeds.

          Hence, it is

ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the op no.1 with cost of Rs. 5,000/- and same is exparte against the op nos. 2 & 3 with cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

          Op nos. 1 & 2 are hereby directed jointly and severally to refund a sum of Rs. 7,000/- to the complainant and also to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant for misselling such a insurance policy to the complainant and for collecting signatures on the blank form by the op no.2 as life advisor of op no.1 and also for adopting unfair trade practice by the ops and entire amount shall be paid by the ops within 15 days from the date of this order.

          For adopting unfair trade practice and for misleading such an insurance policy by the op nos. 1 & 2, op nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally shall have to pay penal damages of Rs. 5,000/- to the Consumer Forum and it is imposed for adopting unfair trade practice and misleading of insurance policy by the op nos. 1 & 2 and it must be deposited to this Forum within 15 days from the date of this order.

          If ops fail to comply the order in that case ops shall be prosecuted u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed and if order is not complied within the stipulated period in that case for each day’s delay op nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally shall have to pay penal interest  at the rate Rs. 200/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree.