BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.158 of 2015

Date of Instt. 17.04.2015

Date of Decision :05.10.2015

Dara Singh aged about 39 years son of Kuldeep Singh R/o 1018, Rajput Nagar, Model House, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. DHFL Life Insurance Co.Ltd, Regd.Office:- 4th Floor, Building No.9B, Cyber City, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon, through its Mg.Director/Chariman.

2.DHFL Life Insurance Co.Ltd., Near Guru Nanak Mission Chowk, above Passport Sewa Kendra, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.

.........Opposite parties.

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.RK Bhalla Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.BP Singh Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant and his other family members are having life insurance policies bearing No.01612863 and 01620548 in Kotak Mohindra Company, No.003695447, 003831983 in Birla Sunlife, No.35010147604 in SBI Life Insurance, No.5003521977, 53590048 in Bharti Axa, No.20825705 with Met Life i.e different insurance companies and the complainant was not making regular payment of premium of the above said policies and therefore he was defaulter in making the premium as required in above said policies. The complainant got a call from one Mr.I.S.Sodhi (Mobile No.8726566838) and introduced himself as Regional Manager of DHFL and told the complainant that there is a bonus relating to the complainant and his family members in different policies of different companies which is amounting to Rs.28 Lacs approx. The said Mr.IS Sodhi told the complainant that if the complainant and his family members will deposit one installment each in those insurance policies, he will get the encashment of all the policies relating to the complainant and that amount of Rs.28 Lacs will be credited in the bank account of the complainant. He also demanded cheques amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- in the name of DLF and DHFL. The complainant sent this amount to Mr.IS Sodhi through cheque with the hope that he will get the above said policies regularized and encashed before maturity. These cheques were duly encashed on 8.2.2014 and 25.2.2014 from the accounts of father of the complainant. The complainant also sent the copies of ID cards and another documents required for the encashment of policies before maturity. In the month of February 2014, father of the complainant namely Kuldeep Singh received two policies No.000291148 and 000293276 in the name of the complainant and at that time the complainant was not in India. When the complainant returned to India, he immediately made a complaint dated 19.8.2014 to the manager DHFL Pramercia Life Insurance Company with respect to the fraud committed by the opposite parties as well as Mr.IS Sodhi. At that time the complainant deposited the original polices bond with the opposite party No.2 on 21.8.2014 for the refund of premium of Rs.1,50,000/- paid by the complainant but inspite of the deposit of all the policies, the opposite parties have not refunded the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest. It is worth while to mention that inspite of fact that the complainant never signed proposal form and other required documents for getting the insurance policy, the opposite parties have issued the policy No.291148 and 000293276 with some forged signature of the complainant. When the complainant has never applied for issuance of the policy, then there is no question of issuance of the same. In fact, the said payment of Rs.1,50,000/- was made by the father of the complainant on the allurement of Mr.IS Sodhi that he will get the encashment of all the previous policies in the name of the complainant and he will get transfer Rs.28 lacs in the account of the complainant. Moreover, the entire dealing was being done by the father of the complainant and policies were also issued at the address of the father of the complainant and at the time of issuance of the policies, the complainant was not present there and he never received any such policy. In this way, the policy was issued by the opposite parties fraudulently. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith interest after canceling the policies. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the complainant voluntarily purchased two policies of DHFL Pramerica Future Idols Gold+ plan after completely understanding the terms and conditions of the insurance products, the details of which are as follows:-

3. The complainant as life insured after completely understanding all the terms and conditions which were duly explained to him had signed the proposal forms. Copies of application forms bearing Nos.AF001770993 & AF001995593 & KYC documents duly signed by the complainant are annexed. Thereafter as per practice and additional measure the opposite party made PIVC call (Pre-Verification Calls) on 14.2.2014 & 27.2.2014 for policies Nos.000291148 & 000293276 respectively, wherein on the said call the complainant was explained about all the policy features of the product and on the said call the complainant himself confirmed that he was satisfied with the product, in furtherance to same the complainant confirmed that he signed the application forms, moreover the complainant was explained all the terms of both the policy contracts to which the complainant neither raised any query or complaint nor any objection, which itself speaks the volume that the complainant was satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy contracts. After carefully considering the information provided in the application forms, the insurance company before issuance of the policies requested the complainant to complete the medical examination requirements and accordingly the medical examinations of the complainant were carried out. The medical examination report (MER) and reports of Baweja Hospital & Maternity Home of the complainant are annexed. Further believing, the same to be true and upon receipt of the duly filled form alongwith the initial premium, information and signed documentation, the opposite parties issued the policy contracts, details of the contracts are as below:-

4. Based on the information contained in application forms and further believing the same to be true and upon receipt of the duly filled forms, the opposite party had issued the above said policies. Thereafter policy documents alongwith schedule and the terms and conditions thereto and welcome letter were dispatched to the complainant. It is submitted that upon the issuance of the above said policy contracts, the opposite party neither received any query nor a complaint during the free look period with respect to the above mentioned policies. It was therefore presumed legally that the complainant was satisfied with the policies so issued. The complainant is estopped from challenging the terms and conditions of the concluded contract and denying the contents of the application forms. The complainant had also submitted one letter in the month of February 2014, for accepting the premium from his father. He also submitted one signed letter on 3.3.2014 in respect of application No.AF001995593 before the insurance company submitting that name of his father is Kuldeep Singh Sehmby and Kuldeep Singh & Kuldeep Singh Sambhey is same person. It speaks volumne that complainant had purchased the above said policies with full knowledge and after completely understanding the terms and conditions of the insurance products. Thereafter the insurance company i.e opposite parties after a gap of approximately 7 months received a complaint dated 19.8.2014 (received on 21.8.2014), for the very first time from the complainant alleging mis-selling of the policies and raised certain baseless allegations against which was duly replied vide letter dated 2.9.2014 informing the complainant that the above said policies were issued on receiving the signed application forms as well as KYC documents. The policy contracts were issued in the month of February 2014, which were delivered in February & March 2014 and the first cancellation was sought on the basis of baseless allegations in the month of August 2014. It clearly shows that the said request is beyond the free look period. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

5. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed evidence.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RA alongwith copies of documents Ex.RW1/1, Ex.RW1/2A, Ex.RW1/2B, Ex.RW1/2C, Ex.RW1/3A, Ex.RW13/B, Ex.RW1/4, Ex.RW1/5, Ex.RW1/6A, Ex.RW1/6B, Ex.RW1/7A, Ex.RW1/B and Ex.RW1/8 and closed evidence.

7. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties and further gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of both the parties.

8. The written arguments filed by the complainant are in substance re-production of the averments contained in the complaint. According to the complainant, he and his other family members are having insurance policies in Kotak Mohindra Company, Biral Sunlife, SBI Life Insurance, Bharti Axa and Met Life insurance company but in the said policies, the complainant was defaulter as he was not making regular payments of the premiums. Further according to the complainant, he got call from one Mr.IS Sodhi, who introduced himself as Regional Manager of DHFL and told him that there is a bonus relating to the complainant and his family members in different policies of different companies which is amounting to Rs.28 Lacs approximately and in case the complainant and his family members deposit one installment each in said insurance policies, he will get the encashment of all the policies relating to the complainant and amount of Rs.28 Lacs will be credited to his bank account and as such on the demand of said Mr.IS Sodhi, he gave cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- to him but later on he received two policies in question in his name issued by the opposite party insurance company. According to the complainant, he has never signed the proposal form or any other document for getting insurance policy from the opposite parties. The above said version of the complainant is not probable nor borne out from the evidence on record. The complainant was having different policies in Kotak Mohindra Company, Biral Sunlife, SBI Life Insurance, Bharti Axa and Met Life insurance company then how the opposite party insurance company could get the said polices revived with payment of Rs.1,50,000/- only to opposite party and ensure the payment of Rs.28 Lacs to the complainant. This version is not at all probable. In para 4 of the complaint, the complainant has himself pleaded that in February 2014, his father Kuldeep Singh received two policies in the name of the complainant and at that time he was not in India and when he returned to India, he immediately made a complaint dated 19.8.2014 to the manager of opposite party insurance company. So admittedly, the policies in question were received in February 2014 may be by father of the complainant. Admittedly the complainant made complaint dated 19.8.2014 i.e after about six months of receiving the policies in question. So complainant never applied for cancellation of the policies in question within free look period. The opposite party insurance company has dispatched the policies at the address given by the complainant and were admittedly received by his father and in case complainant was not in India, the opposite party insurance company can not be blamed. The opposite parties have produced proposal forms relating to both the policies in question as Ex.RW1/2A and Ex.RW1/2B. According to the complainant, he has not signed these proposal forms. From the comparison of signature on affidavit Ex.CA of the complainant and on the above said proposal forms, it appears that proposal forms were signed by him as the signature on affidavit of the complainant and both the proposal forms appears to be of one and same person. The complainant has not examined any expert witness to prove that signature on the proposal forms are forged one. The complainant was also got medical examined by the opposite party insurance company and Ex.RW1/3A is medical examination report of the complainant. Ex.RW1/3B is medical report given by Baweja Hospital & Maternity Home. Copy of ECG of complainant is also on record. In case complainant had not applied for the policies in question, then there was no occasion for him to undergo any medical examination. Complainant also wrote letter Ex.RW1/6A which was received by the opposite party insurance company on 26.2.2014 wherein it is mentioned that he had applied a policy in your company vide application No.AF001995593 and in this application his father is paying the premium and kindly accept this and do the needful. He wrote another letter Ex.RW1/6B to the opposite party insurance company wherein he has mentioned that he applied a policy in your i.e opposite party company vide application No.AF001995593 and in that his father name is Kuldeep Singh and Kuldeep Singh Sahmby is the same person. So in case the complainant had not applied for the insurance policies in question, there was no occasion for writing the above said letters to the opposite party insurance company. In para 5 of the complaint, the complainant has pleaded that in fact, the said payment of Rs.1,50,000/- was made by his father on the allurement of Mr.IS Sodhi. The complainant has not tendered any affidavit of his father to prove the above said allurement alleged to have been given by Mr.IS Sodhi. Moreover, the complainant has not pleaded that Mr.IS Sodhi as a party in the present above. The above version of the complainant appears to be after thought one and is devoid of any merits.

9. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

05.10.2015 Member Member President