Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/816/2014

Jaswinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Company Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Daman Dhir

12 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/816/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	10/12/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	12/08/2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.   Jaswinder Singh son of Dalbara Singh;

 

2.   Rajwant Kaur wife of Jaswinder Singh;

 

3.   Paramveer Singh (minor) son of Jaswinder Singh through his father Jaswinder Singh;

 

All residents of House No.75-A, Sector 51-A, Chandigarh. 

 

….Complainants

Vs.

 

1.   DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Company Limited, 4^th Floor, Building No.9, Tower-B, Cyber City, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon, Haryana, through its Managing Director.

 

2.   Pavan Dhamija, Chief Executive Officer, DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Company Limited, 4^th Floor, Building No.9, Tower-B, Cyber City, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon, Haryana, through its Managing Director.

 

3.   Branch Manager, DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Company Limited, Sector 35, Chandigarh.

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   MRS. SURJEET KAUR           PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Daman Dhir, Advocate.
For OPs	:	Sh. Ashok Arora, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

]

 

          The facts which are necessary for the adjudication of the present Complaint are conceptualized hereinafter. Allured by the rosy picture painted by the Agent of the Opposite Parties in respect of their insurance policies-cum-investment plans, the Complainants invested an amount of Rs.9,00,000/-, whereafter Opposite Parties issued three insurance policies bearing Nos. 000260829, 000255571, 000261088 and two policies bearing nos. 000255950 and 000256967 in the name of Complainant No.1 and Complainant No.2 respectively. Photocopies of the policy documents are at Annexure C-1 to C-5 respectively. However, to the astonishment of the Complainants there was mismatch in the occupation details with different figures of annual income of the Complainants, details of which have been given in para 8 of the Complaint itself. Observing such blunders in the policies, the Complainant approached the Branch Office of Opposite Parties for necessary corrections therein and submitted all the policy documents for doing the needful. Thereafter, the Complainant No.1 constantly followed up the matter with the Opposite Parties, but all his requests had gone down the drain as on every such visit, the officials of the Opposite Parties used to make one excuse after the other and lingered on the delivery of the correct policies. Eventually, in the last week of Nov. 2013, the Complainant No.1 was handed over the policies without there being any changes/corrections made, with a direction to contact the Head Office, directly, as the same requires their approval. Thereafter, the Complainant wrote a letter dated 10.12.2013 (Annex.C-6), followed vide a reminder to the branch Office of the Opposite Parties, but no action was taken. Even the legal notice dated 3.3.2014 (Annexure C-7) served upon the Opposite Parties, did not bear the fruitful results. Therefore, alleging that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties tantamounts to deficiency in service, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Parties in their joint written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, have pleaded that the Complainants had submitted the application forms along with KYC documents. The features of the plans were explained to them and only after understanding the same in entirety, they opted for the plans. Based on the information contained in the application, the Opposite Parties had issued the policies in question. Thereafter, policy documents along with the Schedule and the terms and conditions thereto were dispatched to the policy holder at the address provided. It has been further pleaded that the answering Opposite Parties neither received any query nor a Complaint during the free look period with respect to the policies in question. It was therefore presumed legally that the Complainants were satisfied with the policies so issued. The answering Opposite Parties also made pre-verification calls/welcome calls on 14.7.2013, 24.7.2013, 14.8.2013 and 19.8.2013 to the Complainants and on all occasions, the Complainants confirmed that they were satisfied with the policy contracts. It has been asserted that the Complainants approx. after 06 months approached the answering Opposite Parties vide letter received on 11.12.2013 with baseless allegations and demanded refund of the premium amount, upon which the answering Opposite Parties vide letters dated 24.12.2013 & 30.12.2013 informed that the policy contracts were outside free look period (Annexure R-8). While admitting the receipt of legal notice, the answering Opposite Parties pleaded that the same was duly responded vide letter dated 21.3.2014 (Annex.R-9) reiterating the aforementioned facts. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

5.     We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides.

 

6.     In the present case, the Complainants have alleged that a rosy picture regarding insurance-cum- investment plans was given by the Opposite Parties and the terms and conditions of the policies were not brought to their knowledge by the Agent of the Opposite Parties. It is also alleged that the signatures of the Complainants were obtained on blank form(s) and the details in the forms have been filled by the Executive of the Opposite Parties for his personal financial gains. The Complainants have further alleged about fabricating their fake signatures and wrong information and have also raised the issue that the said conduct of the Opposite Parties made them liable to be prosecuted for criminal breach of trust.

 

7.     We have carefully considered the rival contentions. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Munimahesh Patel 2006 (2) CPC 668 (SC), Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. I (1998) CPJ 13, a case decided by a four Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and  M/s Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd. Vs United Commercial Bank III (1992) CPJ 50, a case decided by a three member Bench of  the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held  that when there are allegations of forgery, fraud and cheating, adjudication whereof, requires elaborate evidence, the  same cannot be decided by a Consumer Fora, proceedings before which, are summary in nature.  The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., filed Civil Appeal bearing No.4091 of 2006, in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the proceedings, before the Commission were essentially summary in nature. It was further held that the factual position was required to be established by documents.  It was further held that, in view of the complex factual position, the matter could not be examined, by the Consumer Fora, and the appropriate Forum, was the Civil Court. In Reliance Industries Ltd.’s case (supra), it was held that when the questions of fraud and cheating are involved, in regard to the claim of the complainant, which require thorough scrutiny, including the examination of various documents, and supporting oral evidence, the Consumer Fora cannot adjudicate upon the matter. It was further held that the questions of forgery/fraud, cheating and conspiracy, could be satisfactorily resolved, by the Civil Court. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in M/s Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd.’s case (supra) decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

 

8.     We are of the concerted view that the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Since in the instant case, the disputed and complicated questions of fact and law are involved and for proving the allegations of the Complainant, thorough analysis of voluminous documents and elaborate examination of the witnesses and their cross examination is required, we feel that the case cannot be adjudicated upon by this Forum, proceedings before which are summary in nature.

 

 

9.      For the reasons recorded above, we find that this Complaint before this Forum is not maintainable and the issues involved in the Complaint can be decided by the Civil Court. Consequently, the Complaint is dismissed, with liberty to the Complainant to seek his remedy before the Civil Court/ appropriate Forum. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

 

 

10.     In terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industries (1995) 3 SCC 583, the Complainant may seek condonation of delay, if any, by moving an appropriate application before the appropriate Court/Forum, if so advised.

 

11.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

12^th August, 2015                                          

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                         Sd/-          

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

“Dutt”                                                                                            MEMBER