Orissa

Cuttak

CC/167/2016

Jitendra Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Executive,Future General India Life Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

P K Mishra & associates

15 Apr 2019

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

C.C Case No.167/2016

    … Complainant.

Jitendra Gupta,

At:Pithapur,Moon Light Lane,

PO:Buxibazar,P.S:Badambadi,

Town/Dist:Cuttack.

                Vrs.

 

1.       Balaram Sharma,Chief Executive,

Future Generali India Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

Corporate and Regd. Office At:6^th Floor,Tower-3,India Bulls Finance Center,

Senapati Bapt Marg,Elphin Stone Road,

Mumbai-40013,Maharastra.

 

2.       Chief Executive Officer,Future Generali India,

LIC Limnited,Thana,Maharastra.

 

3.       Bandana Dasm,Deputt Manager,Future Generali India,

At:A.G.Market,Bhubaneswar,Dist:Khaurda.

 

4.       Branch Manager,

Future Generali India,At:Press Chhak,

PO/PS:Madhupatna,Dist:Cuttack                                                   .… Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:    20.12.2016

Date of Order:   15.04.2019

 

For the complainant:             Sri Niranjan Panigrahi,Adv. & Associates.             

For O.Ps.1 to 5:                        Smt. Nitu Roy,Adv. & Associates.                 

                     

 

Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

The present complainant having attributed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice to the O.Ps has filed this complaint seeking appropriate relief against them in terms of his prayer in the consumer complaint.

1. Facts of the consumer complaint, in short, reveal that the complainant had obtained two Life Insurance policies for a total sum of Rs.1,65,000/- from Future Generali India Life Insurance Company Ltd. at the instance of a broker belonging to New Delhi during the month from June to September,2014.   Accordingly a representative of the local branch office at Cuttack visited the place of the complainant there.  He prepared all the documents necessary to complete the formalities and also obtained money and signatures of the complainant.  About 3 to 4 weeks thereafter, the complainant received the policy documents and consulted the said broker.  That broker instructed him that the policy documents and other papers in his possession were not to be opened lest the policy bond would not be accepted for the purpose of availing loan at the time of need.  The complainant accordingly obliged.

It is further stated that the O.Ps maintained long silence and did not take any follow up action to make arrangement of a loan for him.Thereafter the complainant opened the document and went through the policy bond and the terms and conditions of the policy.He was astonished to know that the said policy bond which commenced on 24.9.14 is not a fixed deposit document.Rather it is a document manufactured behind the back of the complainant for the purpose of recurring deposit for a period of 12 years.He being a poor unemployed, it is not possible on his part to wait for such a long period to get the benefit of the recurring deposit.The conduct of the O.Ps is also questionable.Although the complainant has requested several times to the O.Ps 1 to 5 to rectify the mistakes, yet it did not yield any result.By this process there was delay of about 1 year in rectifying the defect but of no avail.Having no other alternative, the complainant lodged a complaint on 8.4.16 before the Grievance Redressal Office of Future Generali India. The Insurance OMBUDSMAN,Bhubaneswsar vide reference No.BHU/L/017/16-17/0083, it is alleged, has dismissed the grievance petition of the complainant without going into merit of the case.

It is specifically stated that clause-9 of the policy conditions envisages that there is a free look period for 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents within which the complainant, if so desires, may review the terms and conditions of the policy.In the event of any disagreement, he has the option to cancel or withdraw the policy but this privilege was also not provided to him despite his request.It is otherwise perverse and illegal.

He has filed the xerox copy of the concerned bank pass book along with transaction papers made with the O.Ps.The above documents are marked as Annexure-1 series.

The above acts of the O.Ps are tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.As such he has prayed that the O.P.1 be directed to refund the deposited insurance amount made against the Policy No.012164-50 and 01228335 worth of Rs.1,65,000/- (Rupees one lakh and sixty five thousand) only together with interest @ 12% per annum as well as compensation of Rs.50,000/- to him in the interest of justice.

2. O.Ps 1 to 5 appeared and filed written version of their case and contested the same.  At the outset it is stated that the case is not maintainable both in fact and law.  There is no cause of action to file the case.  The complainant is not a consumer as defined U/S-2(d)(ii) of the C.P.Act.  The case is also bad for non-joinder and/or mis-joinder of necessary parties.  He is guilty of suppression of material facts and has not approached the Forum in clean hand.

While traversing the material facts of the complainant, the O.Ps have humbly stated that the complainant ought to have approached for free look period within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy but he wanted to do it after 1 & 1/2 years of receipt of the said document which is not tenable in law.As such it is prayed by O.Ps 1 to 5 that there is no proof of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps and as such the case is liable to be dismissed in limini.

The O.Ps have filed a number of documents in support of their contentions.Annexure-A & B are respectively the copies of the award dt.22.9.16 passed by the Insurance OMBUDSMAN and of the Redressal of Public Grievances Rules,1998. Annexure-C series are the notices issued by Badambadi Police and reply dt.23.9.16 given by the complainant in the police case.Annexure-D & E are copies of proposal form and benefit illustrations filed in this case.Annexure-F is the copies of the policy documents.Annexure-G &H are respectively the copies of the request for free look conciliation and of the company letter declining such request of the complainant by the O.Ps.Annexure-I,J & K respectively are copies of renewal premiumnotices, premium reminder notices and lapsed intimation letters.

3. We have gone through the case records and heard the learned counsels from both the sides.  It is an admitted fact that there is a free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents which provides opportunity to the complainant to review the terms and conditions of the policy and then to accept or reject the same.  But in the instant case there was delay in requesting the O.Ps beyond the period of said 15 days for review of the said documents apparently for the reason that the concerned broker of the O.Ps refused the complainant to open the policy documents and other relevant papers lest the complainant would be deprived of his valuable opportunity to avail the loan.  Because of such delay, the policy documents and its terms and conditions could not be reviewed.  It is therefore submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the broker of the said policy together with the O.Ps are as such responsible for rendering deficiency in service and playing unfair trade practice on him.  As against it, the learned counsel for the O.Ps has fairly submitted that the complainant for the first time requested for a free look conciliation only on 8.4.16 which was approximately 1 & ½ years after the expiry of the said period which commences from the first 15 days of receipt of the policy document.  In the event if the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy he has the option to cancel the document but the whole exercise had to be done within the stipulated 15 days period from the date of receipt of the policy document.  But it has not been so done within that stipulated period. In that view of the matter it is argued that there was violation in the terms and conditions of the policy by the complainant and his request was not acceeded to.

It is further revealed that the complainant was kept in dark by the said broker whose name and identity has not been disclosed as yet, with the false instructions not to open the policy document and other relevant papers.But it is an admitted fact that the local branch agent of the O.P has collected all the documents being signed by the complainant and also collected money from him.Law is well settled as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the O.Ps, that a person who signs a document containing contractual terms is normally bound by them even though he has not read them, or he is ignorant of their precise legal effect.It is also equally settled that when a party to the contract disputes the binding nature of the signed document it is for him to prove the terms in the contract or the circumstances in which he came to sign the documents.This view has been taken in a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Civil Appeal No.9057 of 1996 (Bharathi Knitting Company Vrs. DHL World Wide Express Courier Division of Airfright Ltd.) decided on 9.5.1996.There is no contrary submission made by the learned counsel for the complainant.

In view of the above, it is found that the complainant has failed to dispute the binding nature of the signed documents.As such it cannot be held that the complainant was completely ignorant of the terms and conditions of the policy obtained by him.That apart it is admitted that award has already been passed by the Insurance OMBUDSMAN,Bhubaneswar.Annexure-A is the said award but it cannot be the subject matter of challenge in this proceeding.The fact that a criminal case has already been filed at Badambadi Police Station, Cuttack in connection with the present case seeking appropriate relief vide copy of the FIR and other documents marked as Annexure-C but this fact has not been disclosed by the complainant and to that extent the material facts have been suppressed by the complainant.

Taking into consideration the materials on record, it is held that the complainant has failed to satisfactorily prove that there was deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice in any manner by the O.Ps.Hence ordered;

                                                                ORDER

The case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps 1 to 5.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble President in the Open Court on this the 15^th   day of April,2019  under the seal and signature of this Forum.

                                                                                                                                                  

    (   Sri D.C.Barik )

                                                                                                                     President.

                                                             

 

                                                                                                   (Smt. Sarmistha Nath)

                      Member(W)