IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 16thday of March, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 58/2017 (filed on 03-03-2017)
Petitioner : P.J. Chacko,
Parasseril House,
Athirampuzha P.O.
Parolickal, Kottayam.
(Adv. Benny Joseph)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) Exide Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
3rd Floor J.P. Techno Park
No.3/1 Millers Road,
Bengaluru – 560001.
(Adv. Agi Joseph)
Rep. by its Managing Director.
2) The Branch Manager,
Bajaj Capital Insurance Broking Ltd.
1st Floor Chandys AAA Centre,
Pala Road, Ettumanoor, Kottayam.
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Brief of the complaint is as follows.
On 01-06-2015 the 2nd opposite party collected an amount of Rs.20000/- from the complainant being the 1st instalment of premium for Exide Life Insurance Policy, undertaking the issue of a life insurance policy to the complainant. For that the 2nd opposite party issued a receipt of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. Thereafter the 2nd opposite party issued a letter to the complainant stating that the policy will be issued to the complainant within a period of 30 days. It is seen that instead of issuing a policy to the complainant the opposite parties have fraudulently issued policy to the son of the complainant by fabricating his signature in proposal form while Sreejesh, who is the son of the complainant was abroad. The repeated demands of the complainant for issuing the policy were not considered by the opposite parties and thereby they committed breach of agreement to issue a policy to the complainant within the stipulated period. Instead of issuing the policy on 15-05-2016 the 1st opposite party issued a ‘BAJAJ CAPITAL NEWS’ to the complainant. Thereafter on 15-12-2014 the complainant caused registered lawyers notice on the opposite parties demanding refund of the amount collected from him with interest and compensation. Evenafter the receipt of the said notice, the opposite parties neither issued any reply nor did pay any amount to the complainant. The opposite parties violated the agreement by the non-issuance of the policy to the complainant and so the complainant is entitled to get refund of amount from him. It is averred in the complainant that the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant for refund of amount collected from him along with compensation and the cost of litigation.
Upon notice 1st opposite party appeared before the Commission and filed version. Though the notice was served to the 2nd opposite party, the 2nd opposite party did not care to appear before the Commission and to conduct the case.
Version of the 1st opposite party is as follows.
The petition is not maintainable before this Commission. The cause of action alleged in the complaint is on the basis of fraud. When the allegation of fraud is raised in the complaint the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such case.
It is submitted by the 1st opposite party that there was a specific space provided for affixing the photo of the policy holder in the proposal form and the photo of Sreejesh was affixed in that space. The photograph of Sreejesh Chacko was given by the applicant along with application, details of account number, copy of the passbook with statement of account, aadhar card of Sreejesh Chacko. On the basis of the document and duly filled application form the 1st opposite party issued a policy on 25-05-2015. The policy was received in the address given in the proposal form on 12-06-2015. Thereafter the complainant or Sreejesh Chacko has 15 days time as free look period for cancellation of the policy. Neither the complainant nor Sreejesh Chacko has made any compliant or made any request for cancellation of the policy. Hence the contract of insurance became final after the completion of freelook period. The complainant has not made any demand for issuing a policy in his name. The opposite party has not issued a policy to Bajaj Capital News. The 1st opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. There is no cause of action for filing this complaint. There is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. There is no territorial jurisdiction to file this compliant. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Complainant is examined as Pw1 and Ext.A1 to A7 were marked.
Bharadwaj, who is the Assistant Manager, Legal of the 1st opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Ext.B1 to B10 were marked.
On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record we would like to consider following points.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite party?
- If so, what are reliefs and costs?
For the sake of convenience we would like to consider point no. 1, 2 and 3 together.
Point Nos.1,2 and 3
According to the complainant on 01-06-2015 the 2ndopposite party who is the Branch office of the 1st opposite party collected Rs.20,000/- from the complainant with an assurance to issue a life insurance policy of the 1st opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A1 is the receipt dated nil issued by the 2nd opposite party in the name of the complainant for an amount of Rs.20,000/-. Ext.A2 is a letter issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant on 16-05-2015. In Ext.A2 it is stated that the 2nd opposite party welcome the complainant as a valuable policy holder with ING Vysya Bank and corporate member of Bajaj Capital. Pw1 who is the complainant deposed before the Commission that instead of issuing a policy in his name the 1st opposite party issued a policy in the name of Sreejesh Chacko who is the son of the complainant while he was abroad. On the other hand the opposite parties specifically contented that they have issued the policy in the name of Sreejesh Chacko based on the proposal form submitted to the 1st opposite party along with relevant document attached to it. The 1st opposite party further contented that the complaint is not maintainable before the Commission on the ground that the allegation is based on the fraudulent transaction. It is deposed by the Pw1 that the 2nd opposite party assured the issuance of the policy to the complainant within 30 days vide Ext.A3 letter. On perusal of Ext.A3 which is dated nil we can see that “an accident policy will be sent within 30 days, if any delay please contact us” a receital of Ext.A3. It is pertinent to note that the Ext.A3 does not contain the date of issuance and there was no name or address to prove towhom it was issued by the 2nd opposite party. Moreover it was in connection with an accident policy for which somebody has applied to the 2nd opposite party.
In order to prove the contention of the 1st opposite party they produced Ext.B1 proposal form. On perusal of Ext.B1 proposal form we can see that it was filled bySreejesh who is admittedly the son of the complainant. On perusal of Ext.b1 we can see that the details of the life to be assured is shown as Sreejesh Chacko and aadhar card is also attached along with the Ext.B1 as proof of identity. Ext.B4 is the declaration of the 3rd party premium payment form. On perusal of Ext.B4 we can see that in this document also it is recorded Sreejesh Chacko as the life assured name. The name of the complainant is recorded as pair name address. It is further declared by the complainant in Ext.B4 to the effect that he had paidthe premium on behalf of Sreejesh Chacko, who was his son due to non availability of cheque. The Ext.B4 is duly signed by the complainant also. Vide Ext.B5 the 1st opposite party informed toSreejesh Chacko who is the life assured in the policy that the 1st opposite party had accepted the proposal form and the policy would be issued soon after. On 04-06-15 the 2nd opposite party issued a letter to Sreejesh Chacko, who is the life assured in the policy, describing features of the policy. In Ext.B6 it was specifically stated that if the life assured is not satisfied with terms and condition of the policy he would be at liberty to cancel the policy within 15 days of the receipt of the policy bond. It is pertinent to note that though Sreejesh Chacko received the Ext.B6 he did not exercise his right to cancel the policy within the free look period. If the contention of the complainant is true and correct Sreejesh Chacko would have been exercised the right to cancel the policy within the free look period. Ext.B6 proves that the 1st opposite party issued “Exide life new fulfilling life policy” bearing policy no.03114178 in the name of Sreejesh Chacko for a period of 16 years commencing from 25-05-2015 and it is further stated in Ext.B6 that the annual premium of the policy is Rs.19,401/- for a term of 16 years and the name of Sreejesh Chacko is stated as name of the life assured in the Ext.A6. Thus we can see that the 1st opposite party had issued a valid life insurance policy in the name of Sreejesh Chacko, who is the son of the complainant and the said Sreejesh Chacko has been under the cover of life insurance with 1st opposite party from 25-05-2015 onwards. The premium is a consideration for the risk by the insurance, and if there is no risk there should be no premium. Risk cannot stand aloneif consideration fails and it is inequitable for the insurer to keep the premium paid, even if it is the fault from the part of insured. Here in case in hand the risk of the insurer has commenced from 25-05-2015. Thus we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to get the refund of the premium, which was paid by the complainant to avail a policy from the 1st opposite party in the name of his son Sreejesh Chacko.
Another contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties issued the policy in the name of Sreejesh Chacko by fabricating his signature while he was abroad. The allegation raised by the complainant was that fraudulent act of the 2nd opposite party by affixing the forged signature of Sreejesh Chacko in the proposal form and caused to issue the policy in the name of the said Sreejesh Chacko. When there is an allegation in complaint with a fraudulent act a detailed enquiry and scrutiny of the evidence is required for the fair and proper disposal of the said complaint. In a Pithoraof judgements the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that “when there is an allegation of fraud, detailed evidence required and in the said circumstances, civil court has only jurisdiction. The nature of the trial in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is summary in nature”. In this circumstances the allegation regarding fraud by the opposite parties is to be enquired in detail.
On the basis of the evidence on record and the above said discussion we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to prove his case with cogent evidence and the thecomplaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence compliant is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 16th day of March, 2021.
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Witness from the side of complainant
Pw1 : P.J. Chacko
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1 :Receipt for Rs.20,000/-
A2 : Letter dtd.16-05-2015 by opposite party to petitioner
A3 : Letter dtd.nil by the opposite party
A4 :Brochure of Bajaj Capital money multiplying news
A5 : Lawyers notice dtd.14-12-16 by Adv. Benny Joseph to opposite parties
A6 : Postal receipts (2nos.)
Exhibits from the side of opposite party
B1 : Copy of proposal form by opposite party and copy of aadhar
B2 : Copy of advisor’s confidential report card
B3 : Copy of passbook card
B4 : Copy of declaration form submitted by the complainant
B5 : Copy of Exide life insurance cover note
B6 : Copy of letter dtd.04-06-15
B7 :Copy of receipt dtd.25-05-2015
B8 : Copy of terms and conditions
B9 : Copy of postal AD card
B10 : Copy of letter dtd.12-08-16 by opposite party
By Order
Senior Superintendent
