Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/751/2014

Lakhbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

16 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/751/2014
Date of Institution	:	17/11/2014
Date of Decision	:	16/07/2015

 

Lakhbir Singh s/o Sh. Sarwan Singh earlier r/o # 35, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh. Now resident of #814, First Floor, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.      DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 335-336, 1^st Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

2.      DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Building No.9-B, 4^th Floor, Cyber City, DLF City Gurgaon-122002 through its Managing Director.

3.      Sridhar Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd., SCO 845, Level-I, Shivalik Enclave, Mani Majra, Chandigarh through its Manager.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	P.L.AHUJA	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                                       

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Jaskanwarpal Singh, authorised agent of complainant.
		Sh. Ashok Arora, Counsel for OPs 1 & 2
		Sh. Gaurav Deep Goel, Proxy counsel for Sh. Raghujeet Singh Madan, counsel for OP-3

 

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh. Lakhbir Singh, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that the agent of OPs 1 & 2 (i.e. OP-3) approached him and offered a policy by paying single premium and assured that the returns would be 20% interest per year. It has been averred that the blank proposal forms were got signed from the complainant on 29.9.2011. Premiums of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.99,000/- were paid to the OPs. Accordingly, DLF Pramerica Dhan Suraksha Plan Nos.000087968 and 000088141 were issued to the complainant but the same had some mistakes. The policies were given for correction and the same were again issued on 4.9.2013 (Annexure C-1 and C-2).

According to the complainant, OP-3 again approached him for some other policies upon which he raised the issue of wrong information and signatures on the policy. The employee of OP-3 assured that it shall be corrected but OPs 1 & 2 refused to do so.  It has been averred by the complainant that the agent also sold to him many other policies of Birla Sun Life, Bajaj Alliance, HDFC Life, Shree Ram Life etc. and he duly gave the complaint of mis-selling and unfair trade practice regarding the signatures of the life assured. It has further been averred that even the birth certificate of the granddaughter of the complainant was also procured unfairly as he never provided the same. It has been stated that the other companies cancelled the policies as well as the agency of OP-3 and refunded the premiums back. It has been contended that the complainant gave complaints to the OPs on 19.12.2012, 23.7.2013, 19.8.2013, 27.8.2013 and 12.9.2013 but they refused to cancel the policies and refund the amount. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2.         In their joint written statement, OPs 1 & 2 have taken a number of preliminary objections including that the complaint has been filed beyond the period of limitation of 2 years; that the proceedings before the Forum are essentially summary in nature and issues such as fraud and forgery, which involve disputed factual questions, should not be adjudicated before the Forum. It has been admitted that the policies in question, having term of 20 years, were issued by the OPs based on the proposals dated 29.9.2011.  It has been averred that the complainant alongwith the life insured, after completely understanding all terms and conditions, had signed the proposal forms.  It has also been admitted that the policies in question were corrected and re-issued to the complainant on 4.9.2013. It has been contended that upon issuance of the said policy contracts, the OPs neither received any query nor a complaint during the free look period, therefore, it was presumed legally that the complainant and life insured were satisfied with the policies so issued.  It has been stated that the copy of birth certificate of minor, Ms. Reet was provided by the complainant.  It has further been stated that OPs duly replied each and every letter of the complainant and provided the resolution of each and every query.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs 1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.         In its separate written statement, OP-3 has also taken a number of preliminary objections including that the complaint is not maintainable qua it as it is only a broker and there is no privity of contract between the complainant and it; that present complaint involves complicated/ disputed questions of facts which cannot be decided in summary jurisdiction of this Forum. It has been denied that OP-3 had issued the policy to the complainant or that it received the cheque dated 29.9.2011 from him.  It has been pleaded that the office of OP-3 transmits the leads which are generated through tele-executives and further passes the same to the sales team of OPs 1 & 2 who meet the clients and explain the plans and features and get all the documents and proposal forms duly signed by the buyer of the policy.  It has been contended that the complainant had not lodged any protest with OP-3. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part,
   OP-3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         In his rejoinder, the complainant has controverted the stand of the OPs and reiterated his own. It has been averred that the birth certificate of Ms. Reet and the driving license of Jaskanwar Pal Singh are not genuine.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have appraised the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by the OPs and heard the arguments addressed by the authorized agent of the complainant, learned Counsel for OPs 1 & 2 and learned proxy Counsel for OP-3.
7.         At the outset, it is worth noting that the complainant has made a prayer for refund of an amount of Rs.1,99,000/- relating to three policies.  In para 7 of the complaint also, he has made a mention of three policies. However, a perusal of the file shows that the complainant has placed on record only two policies i.e. Policy Nos.000087968 and 000088141, which are at page 13 and 31 of the paper book. During arguments, the authorized agent of the complainant has submitted that it has wrongly been mentioned in the complaint that refund is required of three policies and, in fact, the refund claimed by the complainant is in respect of two policies. Since the complaint has been filed by the complainant himself and he is not represented by an advocate, in view of the explanation offered by the authorized agent of the complainant, we are considering this complaint to be a complaint for the refund of the amount of Rs.1,99,000/- relating to policies Nos.000087968 and 000088141.
8.         It is pertinent to note that the complainant has alleged that OP-3/agent while offering the policy stated that he had to pay single premium and assured that the returns would be 20% interest per year.  He has further alleged that blank proposal forms were got signed from him on 29.9.2011.  It is also the allegation of the complainant that he made a complaint regarding mis-selling and unfair trade practice because the signatures of the life assured (on proposal forms) were not that of the life assured,
   Mr. Jaskanwar Pal Singh.  The authorized agent of the complainant has further submitted that the complainant never provided a copy of birth certificate of his granddaughter, Ms. Reet and the same was procured unfairly.  The complainant and his son sent the letters dated 23.7.2013 and 10.9.2013 (at page 62 & 63 of the paper book) to Mr. Pavan Dhamija, Managing Director and CEO of DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Company Limited wherein it was alleged that the complainant was approached by one Mr. Rajiv Karkre and the complainant, who was a chronic patient with hearing problem, was offered a policy plan with single premium paying and 20% interest per year and he signed all the places where signatures of the life assured were required on his own which amounts to cheating and forgery. The authorized agent of the complainant has vehemently argued that it is a case of mis-selling, cheating and forgery by OPs 1 & 2 and their agent OP-3.
9.         We have carefully considered the above arguments.  The allegations of the complainant regarding Mr. Rajiv Karkre offering a single premium policy with assured interest of 20% per year cannot be decided without having detailed evidence of both the sides including cross-examination of witnesses. Similarly, the allegations of fraud and cheating on account of forgery of the signatures of Mr. Jaskanwar Pal Singh, son of the complainant, and non-providing of the copy of the birth certificate of the granddaughter by the complainant are of such a nature which require detailed evidence, including cross examination of the witnesses, and the same is beyond the purview of the summary jurisdiction of this Forum.  Since fraud is also alleged in this case, it is to be proved like a criminal charge. Where the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate court of law, then the case cannot be decided by the District Forum by way of summary adjudication.  According to OPs 1 & 2, the complainant alongwith the life assured after completely understanding all the terms and conditions, which were duly explained to him, had signed the proposal forms, copies of which are Annexure B & C respectively.  The complainant is an educated person and it cannot be accepted that his signatures were obtained on blank proposal forms.  At any rate, as already observed, the issues relating to fraud and cheating can appropriately be decided by the Civil Court.
10.         Adverting to the question whether there is any evidence of deficiency in service on the part of OPs, it is the admitted case of OPs 1 & 2 that there were some mistakes in policy Nos.000087968 and 000088141 and the same were given for correction and the same were again issued on 4.9.2013. A perusal of the forwarding letters of policy Nos.000087968 and 000088141 (at page 12 and 30 of the paper book) show that the complainant was asked to review the attached policy document and copy of application form.  Apart from that, he was given the following offer :-

                “If you are not satisfied with any aspect of the policy, you can return it to us within 15 days of receipt.  For Unit Link products, we will refund you the fund value on date of cancellation and any charges paid by you (post deduction of charges already incurred by us such as medical fees, stamp duty & risk premium for the period covered). For other products, we will refund premium paid less expenses incurred and risk premium for the period covered.”

In other words, the complainant was again afforded a free look option of 15 days on 4.9.2013. The complainant made a prayer for cancellation of policy Nos.000087968 and 000088141 vide his letter dated 12.9.2013 (Annexure C-5 at page 61 of the paper book).  We are of the view that when the complainant had made a prayer for cancellation of the policies within 15 days of letters dated 4.9.2013, as per terms of the letters dated 4.9.2013, the OPs were required to refund the fund value on the date of cancellation after deducting the medical fees, stamp duty and risk premium for the period covered. However, despite the letter dated 12.9.2013 sent by the complainant, the OPs in their letter dated 22.9.2013 (at page 41 of the paper book of the OPs) informed the complainant that they had investigated the case and they were unable to comply with his request for cancellation of the policy.  OPs 1 & 2 did not mention in their letter dated 22.9.2013 as to why they had not cancelled the said policies within free look period of 15 days as per their averments in the letters dated 4.9.2013 (at page 12 & 30 of the paper book). We are of the view that the act of OPs 1 & 2 in not cancelling policies No.000087968 and 000088141 and refunding the amount constitutes deficiency in service on their part. We may mention that though OPs have produced evidence to this effect by way of Annexure E that the previous policies were delivered to the complainant on 10.10.2011 and 12.10.2011 respectively and no requests for refund of the amount during free look period of 15 days were made by the complainant, yet, taking into consideration the fact that vide letters dated 4.9.2013, the complainant was again given 15 days period for refund of the fund value, the non-refund of the amount also amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of OPs 1 & 2. 

11.         The learned counsel for the OPs 1 & 2 has also contended that the present complaint is beyond the period of two years because initially policy Nos.000087968 and 000088141 were issued on 5.10.2011 and 7.10.2011 and the present complaint was filed on 17.11.2014 which is beyond the period of limitation.  However, we are not impressed with this contention because the OPs themselves while forwarding letters dated 4.9.2013 sent the corrected policy documents and gave a fresh 15 day’s time for return of the policies and the fund value.
12.         For the reasons recorded above, it is held that even though this Forum has no jurisdiction to go into the questions of fraud and cheating, yet, since deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs 1 & 2 are proved, therefore, the complaint is partly allowed qua them. OPs 1 & 2 are directed :-

(i)     To refund the amount of Rs.1,99,000/- relating to policy Nos.000087968 and 000088141 after deducting the expenses incurred and risk premium for the period covered alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till realization.

(ii)    To make payment of a compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant for mental agony and physical harassment.

(iii)   To pay Rs.7,500/- to the complainant towards costs of litigation.

13.         This order be complied with by OPs 1 & 2 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
14.         The complaint fails against OP-3 and is dismissed because it were OPs 1 & 2 who had received the payment and have to refund the amount.
15.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
16/07/2015	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[P. L. Ahuja]
hg	Member	Member	President