Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Insofar as Appeal Nos. A/1205/2015 and A/1299/2015 emanate out of the common Order dated 30-09-2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Purba Medinipur in C.C. No. 109/2013 and given that the issues at stake are identical in nature, for the sake of convenience of discussion, we deal with both these Appeals through this common order.

In short, case of the Complainant is that, by false representation, in the guise of making single premium policies, the OPs took some cheques from him and also obtained his signature on some proposal forms.  It is further alleged that the OPs also took three cheque for a sum of Rs. 95,000/-, Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 18,000/- without obtaining his signature on the proposal form for making similar type of insurance policies. However, on receiving the policies after few months, the Complainant came to know that those policies were not single premium policies, but regular policies of the OPs against which he was required to pay huge sum of money as premium for 7 years together.  Since the Complainant could not afford paying such huge sum of money as annual premium for such long duration, he requested the OP No. 1 to return the deposited sum, which was, however, turned down by the latter.  Hence, the complaint.

OP No. 1 contested the case by filing WV.  This OP claimed that upon receipt of duly signed proposal forms, the concerned policies were issued in favour of the Complainant and there was no infirmity in doing so.  On receipt of complaint from the Complainant, it internally investigated the matter and found that the Complainant availed of the subject policies after understanding the terms, conditions and features of the same at different times.  So, the allegation of missale of policies was not at all  sustainable and such fact was duly communicated to the Complainant through letter dated 31-10-2013.

The case of the OP No. 2, per contra, was that it discussed/narrated each and every benefit, terms, returns, payment mode etc. to the Complainant and only after satisfied with such discussion, the Complainant decided to opt for the said policies.  Further, as per general practice, details of the said policies were sent to the concerned pre login verification team, who further made due enquiry about such policies from the Complainant and thereafter only, the policies were issued.  Moreover, if the Complainant had any dissatisfaction about the said policies, he could return the said policies within the free-look period.  Thus, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Decision with reasons

Heard the Ld. Advocates of the parties and perused the material on record.

The complaint was filed over alleged misrepresentation of facts by the Appellants. The main grievance of the Respondent/Complainant against the Appellants was that although he was given to understand that the policies were single premium policies; however, later on the same turned out to be regular insurance policies under which he was required to pay premiums on an annual basis. 

It appears from the record that the policies were issued in between the period from 28-03-2012 to 28-09-2012.  Although the Respondent/Complainant alleged in his petition of complaint that he came to know about the anomalies after few months on receipt of the policy papers, documents on record show that all the policy bonds were sent through post within few days of its issuance. Thus, the contention of the Respondent/Complainant that he received the policy papers after few months of their issuance is not at all believable.

On one hand, it is alleged by M/s India Infoline Insurance Brokers Ltd. that the Respondent/Complainant lodged first complaint after more than a year, on the other, it is claimed by the Respondent/Complainant that he visited the office of the Appellant Insurance Company in the month of August, 2012 with a request to refund the deposited sum.  Whatever be the truth, it is not understood, why he did not rush to the office of the Appellant Insurance Company as soon as he received the policy bonds from the Appellant Insurance Company. 

Another intriguing fact of this case, as it appears from the documents on record that, the Respondent/Complainant made a fresh policy bearing no. 15470614 in the month of September, 2012. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the Respondent/Complainant indeed noticed alleged irregularities in respect of the policies of the Appellant Insurance Company and visited its office in the month of August, 2012, it seems quite inexplicable that, despite noticing alleged gross irregularities with all the previous policies, he did not lose his indubitable faith in the sincerity of purpose of the Appellants and made a fresh policy with the Appellant Insurer in the month of September, 2012.

It is stated in the petition of complaint that after August, 2012, the Respondent/Complainant visited the office of the Appellant Insurer in the month of October, 2012 and thereafter, he sent an official complaint in writing in the month of July, 2013.  Significantly, although a substantial value was at stake, the Respondent/Complainant did not show much alacrity to vigorously chase the matter with the Appellants. Strange indeed….. We afraid, Respondent/Complainant’s own conduct appears to be a convoluted exercise in self-deception. 

As a literate person and also as a matter of abandon caution, it was his first and foremost duty to understand the pros and cons of the policies carefully and put his signature on the proposal forms once the same were filled up in all respects in his presence. Thereafter, once the policy bonds reached his residence, he ought to carefully go through the same to satisfy himself about the appropriateness of the policies and in case of any discrepancy, he was required to bring the matter to the notice of the Insurance company forthwith in black & white.  That he did not follow any of these dos and don’ts, surely, the buck stops at his doorstep.  

The Ld. District Forum, as it appears, refused to take any cognizance of the voice sample being provided by the OP No. 2 on the ground that the same was not proved in accordance with law.  We are totally at one with the Ld. District Forum in this regard.  Having said that, it is also significant to note that the Respondent/Complainant has not disputed authenticity of the said voice sample in specific term and as we know, undisputed facts require no proof.

The Ld. District Forum also found fault with the said voice sample on the ground that it did not come across any policy paper pertaining to Policy No. 15068541 although there was specific mention of this policy no. in the voice sample being furnished before it. In this regard, the OP No. 2 has contended before us that apart from the policies as mentioned in the petition of complaint, i.e., 15073027, 15068801, 15117842, 15180872, 15231289, the Respondent/Complainant also opted for another 3 policies, viz., 15068541, 15135393 and 15470614.  Notably, the Respondent/Complainant has not denied the existence of aforementioned three policies, particularly the policy no. 15068541. 

For all these reasons, it does seem to us that, the reliability of the voice sample being furnished before the Ld. District Forum cannot be discarded altogether.  According to the printed transcripts of said conversation, the Respondent/Complainant gave his due approval to issue the concerned policies apart from confirming that the policy terms and conditions were duly explained to him and he discharged the proposal forms on being satisfied about the contents of said forms.

For all these reasons, the allegation of misspelling of insurance policies by the Appellants does not appear quite convincing to us.  Accordingly, we are constrained to set aside the impugned order.

The Appeals, thus, succeeds.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That the Appeals be and the same are allowed on contest.  The impugned order is hereby set aside.

Let the original copy of this order be kept in the case record of Appeal No. A/1205/2015 and photocopy thereof in the case record of Appeal No. A/1299/2015.