Haryana

Panchkula

CC/93/2017

SURENDER NATH SHARMA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF PRAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MUKESH KUMAR

19 Dec 2017

ORDER

Before the District Consumer, Dispute Redressal, Forum, Panchkula.

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	93 of 2017
Date of Institution:	:	1.5.2017
Date of Decision	:	19.12.2017

 

Surender Nath Sharma son of Shri Purshotam Dutt Sharma, aged 67 years, resident of House No.858, Sector 7, Panchkula.

…….Complainant

Versus

DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Company Limited having its registered office at 4^th Floor, Building No.9B, Cyber City, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002 (Haryana) through its Managing Director.

….. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Before :     Mr. Dharam Pal, President.

                Mrs. Anita Kapoor, Member.

               

Argued by: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

                Mr. Tarun Gupta, Advocate for the OP.

 

Order

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

1.     The complainant, a senior citizen living in retirement, was looking for an opportunity to make investment which could fetch him additional income. In that process of enquiry, he came into contact with M/s Shridhar Insurance Broker Pvt. Ltd. Two representatives, namely Mr. Sanjeev Bhatia and Devender Singh Randhawa were deputed by the broker to contact the complainant and those two representatives allured the complainant to obtain certain policies which were projected to ensure a hefty return in the shape of monthly income. The complainant invested a sum of Rs.7 lacs in different policies. The complainant was given to understand that it was a one-time investment. The investment in the policies having come about, the OP started evading any contact with the complainant and would not, even at times, pick up the telephone calls made by the latter. It transpired at that point of time that the complainant was required to pay a sum of Rs.2.5 lacs per year for a period of 20 years. The complainant was shocked by that information because his current income from all sources was not more than 2.50 lacs per annum and he and his wife being in old-age could not have agreed to pay that amount and for a period of 20 years.    

2.     The complainant obtained certain information and documentation under the Right to Information Act and found that the OP (through its representatives) had obtained those policies fraudulently by recording the exaggerated income of the complainant. Apart therefrom, the complainant found that the signatures of Ashwani Kumar and Shalini Sharma, the two nominees of the complainant, had been forged on the proposal form.

3.     The complainant filed a comprehensive representation (Annexure A-1) dated 16.04.2012 to “the compliance department of the OP-company”. Thereafter, the complainant again filed a representation/complaint (Annexure A-2) dated 17.12.2014, annexing therewith each and every relevant information and documentation (Annexure A-3). However, the OP did not respond to the representations made by the complainant herein.     

4.     Besides the fact that exaggerated income of the complainant had been recorded in the proposal form, the complainant being aged 65 years at that point of time was not likely to “avail such long term policy in the old period of life and for such a huge amount”.

5.     The complainant filed an application under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act before the permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility) at Panchkula which was withdrawn by him, with liberty to file a fresh complaint before a competent Forum.

6.     It is on these averments that the complainant filed this complaint.

7.     Besides averring that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint which is based upon “mere surmises and conjectures”, it was averred that the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint as he had himself appended his signatures to the relevant documentation in full understanding thereof. The further averment was that it was the complainant who “did not deposit the renewal amount within the stipulated time period” inspite of “the renewal follow up notices dated 26.11.2012, 02.12.2012, 02.01.2013 and 16.02.2013 respectively”, thereby inviting the penalty of lapse of the policy. That the complainant started nursing a grievance thereafter only is the plea made by the OPs. 

8.     Affidavit Annexure C-A, alongwith documentation Annexure C-1 to C-3, were tendered into evidence on behalf of the complainant; while affidavit Annexure-RA, alongwith documentation Annexure R-1 to R-9, were tendered into evidence on behalf of the OP.

9.     We have heard the learned Counsel of the parties and have carefully perused the record.

10.    We find from a conjunctive perusal of the pleadings made by the parties that the complainant had made a categorical averment in the course of Para-7 of the complaint about his having forwarded two comprehensive representations (Annexures A-1 and A-2 dated 16.04.2012 and 17.12.2014 respectively), alongwith the entire relevant documentation but that the OP did not take any meaningful action on the basis thereof. All that the OP averred, in the course of corresponding para of the written statement, is that the complaints were enquired into but found not acceptable. That the complainant had been duly informed that the policies could not be cancelled as the same were outside the free look period was the further averment made by the OP.

11.    It also requires to be noticed that the complainant had made a categorical averment in the course of Para-8 of the complaint that a person of his age-group (65 years, at that point of time) was not expected to undertake a liability of payment of the yearly premium for a period of 20 years, particularly when his yearly income was not more than the yearly premium of Rs.2.5 lacs. The averment with regard to the income was made in the course of Para-5 of the complaint.

12.    In the corresponding paras of the written statement, all that the OP could aver was that all the details in the proposal forms were filled up from “the information provided and the declarations made by the complainant at the time of signing of all the relevant documentation”.

13.    The age-old adage is that “Men may lie but the circumstances do not”. The age of the complainant was evident to the representatives of the OP. It is not even the averment by the OP that the complainant had obtained any income proof from the complainant. In view of the fact that the complainant is a retired person, it would have been very natural for the representatives of the OP to have obtained income proof from the complainant. The mere declaration of income, as averredly relied upon by the OP, could not have been made by the complainant or accepted by the representatives of the OP as Gospel’s truth. It is to state the obvious that a person would not agree to make a yearly payment of premium which is beyond his annual income. Further, a person at the age of 65 years would not be expected to undertake a liability for a period which is beyond the normal life expectancy of an individual.

14.    It is neither here nor there for the OP to aver that the complaint is estopped from denying the acceptance of the contents of the proposal form as he had appended his signatures thereto. The identical proposal forms run into a number of pages and there are columns aplenty therein. It is absolutely improbable that a person at that age-group would have gone through each and every column of the proposal form. That inference is cemented by the facts recorded in the preceding paras of this order. 

15.    It is very pertinent to note that though the OP averred that the complaints filed by the complainant had been found to be without any validity and intimation thereof had been given to the complainant, the former has not annexed any documentation to cement the averment. In an organizational infrastructure of this type, it would be natural for every information to be communicated to the complaining party either by registered post or by courier. If the averred communication had come about in that manner, there is no reason why the OP would not have been able to produce the relevant documentation. In the absence thereof, the inference that the averment in the context had been made just like at and that it does not warrant acceptability at law. 

16.    For the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we have no hesitation in allowing this complaint. While allowing the complaint, we would order that: 

a)     The OP shall refund the entire amount paid to it by the complainant, alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of each receipt and till the repayment thereof comes about;

b)     The OP shall pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as the compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused to him; and;

c)     The OP shall pay an amount of Rs.11,000/- as the cost of litigation.

17.    The OP shall comply with this order within a period of one month from the date its communication to them comes about.

18.    A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced

19.12.2017                         ANITA KAPOOR                               DHARAM PAL

                                         MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                        ANITA KAPOOR

                                        MEMBER