BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.441 of 2014
Date of Instt. 11.12.2014
Date of Decision: 23.05.2017
Mr. JP Chander R/o 1054 A, Urban Estate Phase-1, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Company Limited, 4th Floor, Building No.9, Tower B, Cyber City, DLF City Phase-111, Gurgaon-122002.
2. The Branch Manager, Eminent Mall, Unit N03-4, Lajpat Nagar, Guru Nanak Mission Chowk, Jalandhar.
3. Rohit Bajaj, WZ (114)E, Todpur Main Road, Ramleela Ground, New Delhi-110012.
4. M/s Havmore Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd, Code-SE00012712, Kota Rajasthan.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),
Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. JPS Kohli, Adv Counsel for complainant.
Sh. Bhupinder Pal Singh, Adv counsel for OP No.1 & 2.
OP No.3 Dismissed as Withdrawn.
OP No.4 exparte.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant had been approached with false and lucrative offers on Insurance Proposal by the OP No.3 and 4 who represented themselves to be the Authorized Agent of OP No.1. That the OP No.3 and 4 had been calling regularly to the complainant to and fro with schemes to attract and brain wash the complainant's mind for getting the insurance policy. That the OP No.3 and 4 on behalf of OP No.1 misrepresented and cheated the complainant with false commitment that the policy premium amount will be released in the shape of “Diamond Lucky Scheme” and the complainant would get Rs.11,55,444/- in the token and reciprocate of the premium paid to the company. That the complainant was further lured by the OP No.3 and 4 acting on behalf of the OP No.1 that the actual premium amount will also be released later on after the encashment of amount under the above mentioned Lucky scheme. That the complainant being innocent, poor was entangled and trapped in the web led by the OP No.3 and 4 acting on and behalf of OP No.1 bowed upon, trusted, relied and was attracted to the false promises made by the said OPs. That the complainant was forced to agree to purchase DLF Premerica Dhan Suraksha Plan of inusrance of the OP No.1 with lucrative offers. That the complainant paid a total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- vide cheque No.992943 dated 30.10.2012 drawn on State Bank of India, Jalandhar in favour of the OP No.1 by registered post to OP No.3 for purchase of DLF Premerica Dhan Suraksha Insurance TRFTMN1005 plan in the name of his son Navneet Chander. That the OP No.3 and 4 in connivance of OP No.2 instead malafidly and intentionally did a policy No.000212020 dated 29.01.2013 with the policy term of 20 years, premium amount Rs.99,954/-, coverage sum assured Rs.87,8000/- on 29.01.2013 in the name of Mr. Navneet Chander. That the policy No.000212020 was issued by the OP No.3 and 4 in connivance with OP No.1 without conducting any medical tests of the insured Mr. Navneet Chander which were required and mandatory as per the letter dated 11.01.2013 issued by the noticee No.1. That the other documents mentioned in the letter dated 11.01.2013 and 12.01.2013 were also never furnished by the complainant as demanded by the OP No.1 which were necessary for the issuance of the policy. That the issuance of policy in contravention of Insurance norms for a meager financial gain is cheating and against the fair trade practice which clearly tantamounts in deficiency in service. The complainant was asked to give certain documents along with photographs. That the complainant sent the required documents to the OP No.3 by registered post. That it is pertinent to mention that the complainant nor his son Navneet Chander signed any document related to the insurance nor any proposal form was got signed from them. That all the particulars of the complainant and his son were taken on telephone by the OP No.3. That the proposal form had been filled, signed and witnessed by the OP No.3 and 4 in connivance with the OP No.2 and on behalf of OP No.1. That the proposal form on the basis of which the policy No.000212020 dated 29.01.2013 has been issued by the OP No.1 is fraud, forged, sham and illegal document. Thus the policy stands to be cancelled as it is the creation of fraud, cheating and the OP No.1 is liable to refund the amount of the premium. That Mr. Navneet Chander never signed any Proposal Form. That the signatures along with the particulars mentioned in the Application Form are duplicate, forged and fictious.
2. That the complainant had been trying his best to contact the OP No.3 and 4 for the payment of money under the “Diamond Lucky Scheme”. That the OP No.3 had been asking for lame excuses and dilly dallying with one or the other reason. That the complainant doubting on the assurances given by the OP No.3 and 4 at the time of getting the insurance premium called the office of the OP No.2, who flatly refused to listen to the woe and grievances of the complainant. The complainant tried to contact OP No.3 and 4 on phone but they stopped picking the phone of the complainant and later on the phone were found to be switched off. That the complainant sent a registered letter at the address of OP No.3 but it was returned with the remarks “No such person found at this address”. The complainant was shocked at the unwarranted behaviour of OP No.2, 3 and 4 and came to know that he has been cheated and had been a victim of fraud. That the OP No.1,3 and 4 are had in glove with each other. That their main purpose is to drag the innocent people in their illegal motive by befooling them with false lucrative offers and devoid them of their hard earned money. That this is the big nexus being run by the OP No.3 and 4 for financial gains in connivance with the consent of the company i.e. the OP No.1.
3. That the complainant had made various representation to the OP No.1 through OP No.2 dated 11.06.2013, 16.12.2013, 12.01.2014 and 24.02.2014, stating the facts of the case but the OP No.1 did not pay any heed to the grievances made by the complainant. That the OP No.1 vide its letter dated 24.06.2013 registered the complaint No.COM001950 of the complainant and assured to reply within 14 working days from the date of receipt of complaint. That the OP No.1 vide letter dated 25.01.2014 refused to entertain the cancellation of the policy on the ground that the same is outside the free look period. That it is pertinent to mention that the policy itself is outcome of fraud, concealment of facts, sham, illegal and forged therefore it does not come under the preview of Free Look cancellation policy. That the complainant nor his son Mr. Navneet Chander had signed any document including the proposal form of the OP No.1. That the signatures are forged and done by OP No.3 and 4 at the behest of OP No.1. That the complainant again made a representation on 30.01.2014 against the refusal to cancel the policy and refund the premium amount. That the complainant was duly registered by the OP No.1 under reference No.COM002720 dated 31.01.2014. That the complainant was shocked to receive letter dated 11.02.2014 from the OP No.1 refusing the claim on false investigation done at their end with the remarks that the cancellation request cannot be accepted as it is outside the Free Look Period. That the OP No.1 did not consider the fact that the signatures on the proposal form were forged and no medical tests and other required documents were manipulated and fabricated by the OP No.3 and 4 in connivance with OP No.1. That the issuance of policy on forged, fraud and fabricated documents is sheer contravention to the norms and policies laid by IRDA and thus tantamounts to cheating and deficiency in service. A registered legal notice was sent to the OP's for refund of the premium amount but all in vain and as such the instant complaint filed by the complainant with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs may be directed to refund the premium amount of Rs.99,954/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and cost of the complaint be also awarded.
4. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties and accordingly OP No.4 was duly served but despite service OP No.4 did not appear in the Forum and ultimately OP No.4 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 04.03.2015. The complainant has withdrawn the complaint against OP No.3, vide his separate statement dated 08.06.2015.
5. OP No.1 and 2 filed their joint reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objection that the instant complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and malafide and is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and it is an attempt to waste the precious time of this Forum, as the same has been filed by the complainant just to avail undue advantage. The complaint is thus liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and further averred that the complaint is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and even the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and further alleged that no cause of action in favour of the complainant to file the present complaint and further alleged that the proceedings before the commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues such as fraud, forgery which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated before the Ld.Forum as it requires examination and whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. Jayantilal Keshavlal Chauhan Vs. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1994 (I) CPR 396 that if “fraud” is alleged it is desirable that the complainant should be directed to Civil Court as investigation about such fraud is required to be done. Also the State Commission was right in its view in the matter titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel, 2006(IV) CPJ 1 wherein it was stated that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate Court of Law and not by the commission. Similarly it was also held in the matter titled as Harbans & Co. Vs. State Bank of India, II (1994) CPJ 476 wherein the Court held that when the case is not a simple case of deficiency in service and involves determination of complex questions of facts and law, which cannot be satisfactorily determined by the Redressal Agency in the time frame provided under the Rules, it would be better for the complainant to seek redressal of his grievances in a Civil Court if so advised and further alleged that the complainant along with the Life Assured must have gone through the terms and conditions of the Application Forms and must have been aware of the terms and conditions of the policies at the time of filling the application form as the same were filled and signed by him. As per the terms and conditions specifically provides for a Free Look Period of 15 days, during which period the policy owner is entitled to review the policy terms and conditions and request for a cancellation if dissatisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy. It is submitted that the complainant as a policy holder purchased DLF Pramerica Dhan Suraksha Insurace TRFTMN1005 plan in the name of his son i.e. Life Insured Sh. Navneet Chander after completing understanding the terms and condition of the insurance product, complainant had voluntarily applied for an insurance policy vide Proposal Form. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has obtained the policy from the OP in the name of his son but the remaining allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denies and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and same may be dismissed.
6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-40 and closed the evidence of the complainant and in additional evidence the counsel for the complainant further tendered into evidence additional affidavit Ex.CA/1 alongwith document Ex.C-41.
7. Similarly counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Ramit Raheja Ex.OP-1/A alongwith some documents Ex.RW-1/1 to Ex.RW-1/4 and further Ex.RW-1/5A, Ex.RW-1/5B, Ex.RW1/6, Ex.RW1/6-A, Ex.RW1/6-B, Ex.RW1/7-A, Ex.RW1/7-B and closed the evidence of OP No.1 and 2.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective party and also gone through the case file very minutely.
9. In this case, the counsel for the complainant put oral argument whereas the counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 submitted written argument whereby reiterated the entire factum as detailed in the written reply.
10. After taking into consideration the entire facts, we find that before imparting with the case on merit, we like to discus an other legal point which is necessary to be taken up firstly. As per version of the complainant, a cheating and fraud has been committed by OP No.3 and 4 with the connivance of OP No.1 with the complainant and further the complainant himself described and elaborated in the complaint that the proposal form and any other document relating to insurance policy was not signed by complainant or his son Navneet Chander rather the signatures alongwith the particulars mentioned in the Application Form are duplicate, forged and fictious and further alleged that the proposal form on the basis of which the policy has been issued by the OP No.1 is a fraud, forged, sham and illegal document, the above wording has been repeated by complainant twicely or thricely in the complaint. So, if the plea of fraud and forgery has been himself taken by the complainant then the version of the OP No.1 as taken in the written statement that the District Forum has no jurisdiction because if there is a fraud, cheating, fabrication and misrepresentation then it requires a detailed evidence and if the signature on the Proposal Form has been denied by the complainant and his son then it requires comparison from the Handwriting Expert and further lengthy cross-examination of each witness is required but before the Forum is a trail of summary procedure wherein the above said procedure cannot be adopted and under this situation, we find that the ruling referred by the counsel for the OPs in the written reply are very much applicable in the present case and as such we reached to the conclusion that the instant complaint is not maintainable before the District Forum rather the complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievances and accordingly the instant complaint is dismissed. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
23.05.2017 Member President
