This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that being convinced by one Bappa Roy the Sales Manager cum Financial Consultant of OP he deposited Rs.1 lakh for fixed deposit for one year term in his name and being assured by him he issued a cheque of Rs.1 lakh being cheque no.633616 to Bappa Roy for opening the fixed deposit and at that time said Bappa Roy collected some documents with photos of him, his daughter and wife for getting cashless medical facility of his family and assured him to hand over a gift on behalf of HDFC Life officially. Thereafter, complainant suddenly received a policy bond being No.15859184 via Courier Service and found that it was a HDFC Life Insurance policy bond in the name of his daughter and nominee is his wife and the term is ten years with premium amount Rs.99,999/- per year instead of fixed deposit document. So, complainant forthwith contacted Bappa Roy over phone and also his office when he told the complainant that it is a mistake from HDFC Life and some correction is required and there is no need to worry and he came to his residence and collected the policy bond and assured him for issue of fixed deposit certificate in complainant’s name. But subsequently after two days Bappa Roy came to complainant’s residence and after seeing the policy bond told him that it is a great mistake, they have interchanged the form and also told him that is not the form which he filled up in front of him. When complainant requested that he want to surrender that policy immediately but Bappa Roy convinced and assured him that it would be corrected accordingly and He would get corrected fixed deposit certificate and hand over to the complainant. Thereafter, Bappa Roy collected the policy bond and advised the complainant to keep the Xerox copies of some main pages of the policy bond and again assured the complainant that he would get the corrected fixed deposit certificate in his name within 10 days. But after waiting for many days he did not get any result when he contacted with the OP’s contact number and again and again they assured him that the matter shall be settled soon but after that from 4th week of April, 2013 onward Bappa Roy’s mobile is found switched off always. Then he contacted customer service help line on 13-05-2013 and she advised the complainant to contact local office and submit the complaint as alleged but they reported that there is nothing to do more as same is alive and booked in the name of Avishek Sarkar not Bappa Roy and in the above circumstances complainant went to the Branch Office requested them to convert it into single premium etc. but that were refused and complainant prayed for cancellation of that and that was also refused and cancelling of the same and for making such false representation before him the present complaint is filed for redressal and for refunding the said amount for adopting unfair trade practice by the OP.
On the other hand by filing written statement OP submitted that original policy document was despatched being policy No.15859184 and it was received by the complainant on 02-03-2012 and within freelook period complainant had been prayed for cancellation of the same and at this stage it cannot be cancelled and allegation fo the complainant is found incorrect and it is further submitted that life assured failed to give premium in February, 2014 so the policy went to lapse status and the life assured is not entitled to any benefit under the said policy as per the terms and conditions but OP at its sole discretion can grant a discretionary surrender value after lock in period of three years and further submitted the allegation for the complainant against Bappa Roy is baseless and further it is submitted that policy could be surrender only by the life assured and not the complainant and moreover, no request for surrender of the policy within free look period was received by the OP and the OP is not aware of the allegation of the complainant of handing over the policy document to one Bappa Roy and, as such, deny the same and with reference to this OP has submitted that complainant is not entitled to get any benefit as prayed for and OP has prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with Reasons
On proper study of the complaint and written version including the document as filed by the complainant and also relying upon the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyer it is clear that Bappa Roy as a financial consultant having financial consultant contract No.8334810131 and having financial consultant code 4521 received a cheque from the complainant Gobinda Chandra Mondal and Bappa Roy issued Customer Acknowledgement Receipt of HDFC Life being No.S000040297100 for Rs.1 lakh and in the said Customer Acknowledgement it is specifically mentioned complainant’s name and single life and frequency of payment annually but term is written one year and that receipt is marked at page No.9 of the annexure and if we consider that customer acknowledgement it is clear that Gobinda Chandra Mondal paid that Rs.1 lakh for single life plan frequency annually and term is one year and in respect of that customer acknowledgement receipt OP has no denial. At the same time OP has not denied the status of Bappa Roy as financial consultant of HDFC Life Insurance and if that is the valid customer acknowledgement receipt issued by the HDFC Life through their financial consultant Bappa Roy in that case it is proved beyond any manner of doubt for one year single life plan and for one year term complainant paid Rs.1 lakh for that policy and in the said receipt if is also mentioned that it will be processed within 30 days from the date of issue after attaching the same in the OP’s system and in case of rejection complainant should be communicated accordingly. So, considering the customer acknowledgement receipt it is clear that Bappa Roy introduced the plan for single life frequency of premium annual for one year term subject to payment of Rs.1 lakh and received the cheque being No.633613 for an amount of Rs.1 lakh from the complainant.
On the other hand, OP has tried to convince that Bonani Mondal submitted the application form for obtaining the policy at their office and accordingly they issued such policy being No.15859184 but anyhow OP has failed to produce any document to show by producing any customer acknowledgement receipt in the name of Bonani Mondal or no such document is produced by the OP to show that Gobinda Chandra Mondal as the father of Bonani Mondal issued the cheque for purchasing the said policy in the name of Bonani Mondal. Further it is found that when complainant received the said policy, complainant forthwith reported the matter to Bappa Roy and Bappa Roy then and there met with complainant and received the said policy document assuring the complainant that the policy was wrongly issued and thereafter it would be corrected but thereafter, policy had not been handed over to the complainant by Bappa Roy.
Most interesting factor is that in this case it is proved beyond any manner of doubt that Bappa Roy the financial consultant of the OP practicing fraud upon the complainant and misguiding the complainant and somehow managed to open the policy in her daughter’s name but did not issue any policy in the complainant’s name whereas Bappa Roy managed to collect it by adopting some unfair procedure and managed to open the policy. But truth is that OP has not tried to deny the status of Bappa Roy and admitted position is that Bappa Roy is the financial consultant of the OP.
Another interesting factor is that in the proposal form it is completely filled up by Bappa Roy and in the said form as submitted by the OP there is no signature of the OP’s authority in respect of acceptance of the same or any signature and another factor is that the cheque as issued by the complainant as per customer acknowledgement name of Bonani Mondal is not there. So, considering all the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that Bonani Mondan never deposited any amount to the HDFC Life. There is no such receipt produced by the OP to show the customer acknowledgement was issued and handed over to the Bonani Mondal and it was issued in the name of Bonani Mondal. On the contrary Annexure Page 9 of the complaint it is proved beyond any manner of doubt that for one year plan single life complainant handed over cheque of Rs.1 lakh being cheque no.633616 to Bappa Roy and Bappa Roy issued the customer acknowledgement receipt to Gobinda Chandra Mondal but not in favour of the Bonani Mondal. So, it is clear that Bappa Roy managed to procure the said policy in the name of Bonani Mondal and in favour of Bonani Mondal no customer acknowledgement was issued and customer acknowledgement was received in the name of Gobinda Chandra Mondal, the complainant for one year term single life policy not for any other term. So, it is proved that complainant has proved that story that one year term single benefit scheme he handed over the cheque to the Bappa Roy, being assured by the Bappa Roy, that the policy term for single life and matured after one year such and such and in view of the above findings we are convinced to hold that entire policy as issued in the name of Bonany Mondal and application form as shown by the OP that same has been filled up by Bonani Mondal is fake and procured by Bappa Roy and after opening the same when the policy was received by the complainant, complainant forthwith handed over to the Bappa Roy showing the regular policy of Banani Mondal and in fact, policy in customer acknowledgement was received in the name of Gobinda Chandra Mondal, for one year term but a policy was sent in the name of the daughter of the complainant for long term year having a condition for 10 year’s term and yearly premium is Rs.99,999/- but considering the entire facts and materials it is proved that policy bond being no.15859184 was procured by the financial consultant of the OP by managing otherwise so called the signature of the Bonani Mondal and issued the same but that copy of the proposal form simply proves that it is a procured one and it is prepared by Bappa Roy and for which OP was silent and no step is taken against Bappa Roy even after considering the fact that it was issued by the Bappa Roy after taking the cheque for the present plan for one year term and in view of the above facts and circumstances, we are convinced to hold that the said policy is not at all valid policy because it was procured and prepared by Bappa Roy, the financial consultant of the OP and on the contrary complainant has proved beyond any manner of doubt that his daughter never signed to open any policy but complainant himself handed over the cheque issued by him in favour of HDFC Life to Bappa Roy, the financial consultant and the financial consultant with his consent noted in his name one year single life frequency annual of premium of Rs.1 lakh term one year and customer acknowledgement was issued to Gobinda Chandra Mondal and complainant accepted it but nowhere it was issued to Bonani Mondal then it is clear complainant was no doubt deceived by the HDFC Life Financial Consultant Bappa Roy who adopted an unfair trade practice on behalf of the HDFC Life.
In view of the above facts and circumstances and also in the light of the above observation we are convinced to hold that the said policy document no.15859184 is nothing but a fictitious and forged one and if same would be issued in the name of the complainant and issued to the complainant then it would be a valid policy. Another factor is that total game as played by Bappa Roy on behalf of the OP and truth is that private banking authority has appointed such financial consultant who are loitering in the field only to deceive the customer and it is one of the example of fraud practice and manner of practice adopted by private insurance company and also the private banking authority. Truth is that HDFC Life is no doubt a dishonest insurance company in the market and for their such sort of unfair trade practice practically many customers have been deceived and the present compliant is one of the examples of adopting unfair trade practice by the OPs by applying such sort of dishonest financial consultant.
In view of the above materials and findings we are convinced to hold that policy bond no.15859184 is not a valid one and same was not opened by Bonani Mondal, no amount was paid by Bonani Mondal or by his father. Truth is that complainant himself deposited Rs.1 lakh by cheque issued from his bank account to Bappa Roy in the name of HDFC Life for one year term. But no such policy was sent to the complainant then it is clear mal-practice as adopted by the OP is well proved and their unfair trade practice is also proved and at the same time complainant is beyond any manner of doubt deceived by the financial consultant of the OP and for which the complaint succeeds and at the same time deficient, negligent and deceitful manner of trade is adopted by the OP and also an unfair trade practice as adopted by the OP is also well proved.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is allowed on contest with a cost of Rs.10,000/- against the OP.
OP is directed to refund the entire amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest @8% p.a. from the date of encashment of the said cheque by the OP and till its full payment to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.
OP shall have to pay also the litigation cost along with that amount and the order must be carried out and complied by the OP invariably within one month from the date of this order failing which for non-compliance and disobeyance of the Forum’s order OP shall have to pay penal interest @250 per day till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected it shall be deposited to this Forum accordingly.
For harassing the complainant in such a manner and for adopting unfair trade practice by the OP and also for adopting deceitful manner of procuring insurance policy OP is imposed a punitive damages of Rs.50,000/- which shall be paid to this Forum and this order is passed only to check the unfair trade practice and deceitful manner of trade as adopted by the OP in future and only to save the people from such sort of private insurance company who are loitering in the field to deceive the customer by appointing such a financial consultant and said amount shall be deposited to the Forum accordingly.
OP is directed to comply the order failing which penal proceeding u/s.27 of the C.P. Act shall be started for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed.
