Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/55/2024

RELIANCE NIPPON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

GIAN CHAND S/O SH. PURAN RAM - Opp.Party(s)

SANJEEV GOYAL

28 Oct 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Additional Bench)

Appeal No.	:	55 of 2024
Date of Institution	:	12.02.2024
Date of Decision	:	28.10.2024

Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited, plot No. 10-15, 14th floor, Vijay Building, 17, Barakhamba Road, Cannaught Place, Delhi-110001. Now at unit no. 401-B, 402,403 & 404, 4th floor, Inspire BKC, G-Block, BKC Main Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051.

Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO 122- 123, 2nd Floor, Sector 17 C, Chandigarh -160017, both through their authorized signatory/ Manager Legal Mr. Swapnil Malvi, Associate Vice President-Legal, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited, Available at unit no. 401-B, 402,403 & 404, 4th floor, Inspire BKC, G- Block, BKC Main Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051.

…Appellants/opposite parties

V e r s u s

Gian Chand S/o Sh. Puran Ram, resident of House No. 29/2, Kajheri, Chandigarh (U.T.).

…..Respondent/complainant

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

MRS.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

MR.PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER.

Present:- S/Sh.Sanjeev Goyal and Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocates for the appellants.

Sh.Amit Kumar, Advocate, proxy for Sh.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for the respondent(s).

PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

By this common order, we propose to dispose of the fifteen (15) appeals, filed by the opposite parties/appellants- (Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited), arising out of common order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), whereby the consumer complaints, details of which have been given in the chart below, were partly allowed and the appellants were ordered to refund the entire deposited respective premium amount(s) to the respective respondents alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses. The particulars of the cases are as under:-

S.No		C.C. No.		Complainants (now respondents)	Opposite Parties (Now appellants)	Appeal Nos. and filed on
	285/2020		Ashwani Kumar		The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another	Appeal No. 65 of 2024 Filed on 12.02.2024
	287/2020		Ashwani Kumar		The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another	Appeal No. 64 of 2024 Filed on 12.02.2024
	276/2020		Mandeep Kaur		The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another	Appeal No. 68 of 2024 Filed on 12.02.2024
	277/2020		Avneet Kaur		The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another	Appeal No. 69 of 2024 Filed on 12.02.2024
	72/2021		Usha Rani		The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another	Appeal No. 66 of 2024 Filed on 12.02.2024
	77/2021		Gian Chand		The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another	Appeal No. 58 of 2024 Filed on 12.02.2024
	78/2021		Gian Chand		The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another	Appeal No.57 of 2024 Filed on 12.02.2024
	79/2021		Gian Chand		The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another	Appeal No.55 of 2024 Filed on 12.02.2024
	73/2021		Gian Chand		The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another	Appeal No.56 of 2024 Filed on 12.02.2024
	74/2021		Gian Chand		The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another	Appeal No.59 of 2024 Filed on 12.02.2024
	76/2021		Gian Chand		The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another	Appeal No. 60 of 2024 Filed on 12.02.2024
	772/2021		Rattan Chauhan		The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another	Appeal No. 63 of 2024 Filed on 12.02.2024
	773/2021		Rattan Chauhan		The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another	Appeal No. 61 of 2024 Filed on 12.02.2024
	776/2021		Rattan Chauhan		The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another	Appeal No. 62 of 2024 Filed on 12.02.2024
	32/2021		Bal Krishan Sharma		The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another	Appeal No. 67 of 2024 Filed on 12.02.2024

The facts have been culled out from Consumer Complaint No.285 of 2020-Ashwani Kumar Vs. The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance & Another (Now Appeal No. 65 of 2024 before this Commission). Before the District Commission, it was the case of the complainant that in the year 2016, the agents of the opposite parties had approached him with the investment scheme, saying that it will yields high profits. It was stated that being allured by the words of the agents of the opposite parties, policy namely “Reliance Nippon Life Fixed Saving Increasing Income Plan” was issued on collecting premium amount of Rs.3,99,999.82. It was averred that, it was assured to the complainant by the agents of the opposite parties that the amount paid in the shape of premium shall be invested like an FD and only three years’ premium have to be paid. However, when the complainant received a notice of renewal premium of the policy, he came to know that in fact the agents of the opposite parties had mis-sold the policy as the said notice indicated policy term of 24 years and the annual premium of Rs.3,99,999.82 was payable for 12 years. It was further stated that in this manner, the opposite parties have mis-sold the policy by misrepresenting the facts to the complainant just to grab money, knowing fully well that the complainant was a senior citizen even at the time of issuance of the subject policy and he could not have waited for such a long period for the amount which was invested by him under the impression that the same will be refunded to him after three years. Hence, consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission.
The consumer complaint was contested by the opposite parties and they filed written reply, taking various objections qua maintainability, concealment of facts and also that the complainant has not approached the District Commission with clean hands. It was admitted that the subject policy was issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. It was averred that the terms and conditions of the policy are very clear that the premium was payable by the complainant for 12 years and the policy term was for 24 years. It was denied that the subject policy was mis-sold to the complainant. In fact, the complainant has filled the proposal form and on admitting the contents of the same to be correct had appended his signatures on the same. It was alleged that in fact, the complainant is backing out from the terms and conditions of the subject policy by concealing material facts from this Commission.
Similar contentions were raised by the remaining complainants in their complaints, details of which have been given above.
The complainant filed rejoinder wherein he reiterated his version and controverted those of the opposite parties.
The contesting parties led evidence in support of their cases.
The District Commission after hearing the contesting parties, and on going through the material available on record, partly allowed the consumer complaints, referred to above.
Hence these appeals have been filed by the appellants/opposite parties.
We have heard the contesting parties and have carefully gone through the material available on the record, including the written arguments filed by the parties concerned.
Counsel for the appellants, in all these cases, has vehemently contended that that because the respondents have failed to avail option of free look period from the date of receipt of the respective policies, now they are not entitled to refund of the premiums paid and on the other hand are entitled to get surrender value of their respective policies. He further submitted that the respondents cannot wriggle out of the terms and conditions of the policies and declarations signed by them but the same stood ignored by the District Commission. He further submitted that at no point of time, the respondents raised any complaint with the appellants qua the policies issued to them.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that the policies in question were mis-sold by the agent of appellants to the respondents qua term of payment of premiums and policy term. He further submitted that though it was assured to the respondents by the agents of the appellants that the amount paid in the shape of premium will be invested like an FD and only three years’ premium have to be paid, yet, later on, it was found that they have been sold the policies with a long policy terms ranging upto 24 years and also the annual premium payable were also fixed for long years ranging upto 10 years, knowing fully well that the some of the respondents were senior citizens and students, even at the time of issuance of the subject policy and neither they were in capacity to pay premiums nor they would have waited for such a long period. Hence, consumer complaints were filed before the District Commission.
It may be stated here that perusal of the insurance policies placed on record establish that the same have been sold to the respondents, many of whom are senior citizens and other persons, without due consideration of their age and financial status, raising serious ethical and legal concerns. Even in some cases, the policies have been sold to the students, without considering their payment capacity of premiums. The insurance company, whose primary responsibility is to offer appropriate and tailored financial products, neglected to properly assess the needs and circumstances of the insured individual. In these cases, not only many of the insured persons were senior citizens, but most of them like students etc. are in a vulnerable financial position, making them particularly susceptible to the risks associated with an unsuitable policy. The insurance company failed to exercise the necessary duty of care by not evaluating whether the product was suitable for the respondents or not. Selling an insurance product without taking into account the client’s age, financial status etc. can lead to several problems, such as over-insurance, under-insurance, or the inability to claim benefits when needed. Especially for senior citizens and persons with financial difficulties/students, whose financial resources may be limited and whose (senior citizens) health might be declining, the consequences of an inappropriate insurance policy can be even more severe, potentially depleting savings or failing to provide adequate coverage when it is most needed. This mis-selling practice not only undermines consumer trust in the insurance industry but also exposes the insured to significant financial strain.
Thus, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, it is held that the policies in question were issued by the appellants to the respondents without a clear understanding of the terms, and rather the same were presented in a misleading and obscured manner, which cannot be enforced against the consumers. If an insurance company fails to adequately explain the terms or presents them in a deceptive manner, the contract may be deemed unenforceable. The District Commission was thus right in directing refund of the respective amounts paid by the respondents in respect of the policies in question.
It is therefore held that the orders dated 06.10.2023 passed by the District Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh, in all the consumer complaints, referred to above, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
For the reasons recorded above, all these appeals being devoid of merit must fail and the same stand dismissed with no order as to cost. The orders of the District Commission stand upheld.
Pending application(s), if any, in all these cases, stand disposed of, accordingly.
Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge and one copy thereof be placed in the connected case files, forthwith.
The concerned files be consigned to Record Room, after completion and the record of the District Commission, after annexing the additional documents, if any, submitted before this Commission in these appeals, be sent back immediately.

Pronounced

28.10.2024

Sd/-

[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/55/2024

RELIANCE NIPPON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

GIAN CHAND S/O SH. PURAN RAM - Opp.Party(s)

SANJEEV GOYAL

28 Oct 2024

ORDER

V e r s u s

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Highly recommended!

Experties

Phone Number

7982270319