BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

===

Baljeet Singh s/o Ajmer Singh, r/o # 290, Ward No.11, Morinda – Punjab-140101.

…Complainant

                                V E R S U S

1.     HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.139-140, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160017, through its Branch Manager.

2.     HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 13^th floor, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M.Joshi Road, Mahalaxmi Mumbai through its Managing Director.

                                        ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                                     PRESIDENT

                SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                  MEMBER

DR.(MRS.) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA    MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for complainant

                        Sh.Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OPs.

                                      ---     

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

1]             By this common order, we are disposing of 10 complaint cases including the present complaint, detailed below, as all are having same controversy as well as similar questions of fact & law.

2]             The facts are being taken from the present Complaint Case No. 750 of 2011 – Baljeet Singh Versus HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

3]             Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant took Unit Linked Pension Plus Policy (Annexure C-1) from the OPs by paying single premium amount.  It is averred that when the policy was received, the same was shown to the agent Mr.Gurcharan Singh and it was found that the policy term is 20 years and it is not a single premium policy. Then, the agent checked the copy of the proposal form and found that the premium payment is mentioned as ‘Yearly’ and the policy term is 20 years. It is averred that the agent has observed that the proposal form has been changed by the OPs, the signatures of the complainant were forged and his name & code number was also not mentioned in it.  The complainant approached the OPs for refund of the amount, but the OPs refused it on the ground that the premium can only be refunded after 3 years i.e. in the year 2011. The complainant tried to give an application for cancellation of policy but the same was not taken as the signatures/thumb impression of the complainant did not match. The agent lodged FIR with the police against the Manager of the OPs and he was arrested by the police but later on released on bail. The complainant approached the OPs and gave an application for the refund of premium along with interest, but the OPs sent only a partial amount of Rs.96,821.76, out of the total premium of Rs.1,99,999/-, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence, this complaint.

4]             The OPs in their joint reply took preliminary objection to the effect that the complaint is not maintainable; complaint is barred by limitation and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try & adjudicate the complaint.

                On merits, it is admitted that the complainant took the insurance policy from the OPs, but it is denied that the complainant took single premium policy. It has been pleaded that if the complainant received the policy documents and found to be annual premium plan, he would have immediately exercised the option of refund within 15 days “Free Look Period” and cancelled or modified the policy accordingly, but he did not do so. The complainant neither supplied any documents to show that the said agent Mr.Gurcharan Singh was an authorized agent of the company at the time of sale of this insurance policy nor impleaded him as a party to the complaint. It has been further pleaded that the name & code number of the agent Mr.Gurcharan Singh has not been mentioned in the proposal form. It has been further pleaded that neither the agent nor complainant approached the OPs to cancel the policy immediately after receipt of policy documents. It has been denied that the complainant gave an application for cancellation of the policy and the signatures did not match. It has been further pleaded that the FIR was lodged with the police by Mr.Gurcharan Singh and not by the complainant. It has been denied that the proposal form has been changed by the OPs. Denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6]             We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

7]             The ld.Counsel for OPs Sh.Sandeep Suri, Advocate, has raised an objection that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try this complaint as the complaint is based & made out on the allegations of fraud & forgery, as is clear from averments made in the complaint. 

8]             The perusal of the complaint shows that the complainant in Para No.2 has averred as under:-

“That when the complainant received the policy and the same was shown to the agent Mr.Gurcharan Singh, he found that the policy terms is of 20 years and not the single premium.  The agent then checked the copy of the proposal form annexed with the policy and found that premium payment is mentioned as ‘yearly’ and the policy terms is of 20 years.  He also observed that the proposal form has been changed by the O.Ps. and the signatures of the complainant were forged and his name or code was not mentioned in the space provided for the same.”

9]             The allegations/averments made by the complainant itself shows that the proposal form has been changed as well as his signatures has been forged, besides other discrepancies in the proposal form.

10]           The law is well settled that when there are allegations of fraud and cheating etc., the Consumer Court has got no jurisdiction to try & adjudicate it and the matter is to be decided by the Civil Court.  Reliance has been placed on Daljit Singh Dogra Vs. ING VYSYA Bank & Others, 2009(4) CLT 22 (Punjab State Commission).

11]           From the above, we are of the view that the objection raised by the ld.Counsel for OPs is sustainable and fully justified. 

12]           In view of the foregoings, we are of the firm opinion that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try & adjudicate the complaint.  Therefore, this complaint case as well as all other connected complaint cases, as mentioned in the table at Para No.1 of this order, all stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.  The complainant(s) is/are at liberty to approach any appropriate court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of his/her grievance. 

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.