This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he is the only earning member of his family which has been suffering from cardiological problem and to assure his family income he intended to invest some money in the monthly income scheme and so, he called HDFC Bank Customer Care Telelephone No.6160616 to send some Bank personnel on the some day four persons namely Mr. Debasish Sarkar, Mr. Nilendu Chakraborty, Mr. Ghosh and Ajay Kochar of HDFC Bank agent were referred by the Bank Authority and one Ajay Kochar represented himself as HDFC Bank agent and other three persons present themselves as HDFC Life personnel and given introduction that they are HDFC Corporate Sales Manager, Branch Manager and Agent of HDFC Life and complainant told them that he wants to invest some money in single same and single premium at one time payment under monthly income scheme (MIS) in which he will get monthly interest for the livelihood of his family and the personnel of HDFC Bank handed over their booklet for MIS Scheme under HDFC Life now immediate annuity plan and they assured the complainant that he will got monthly as sum of Rs.2,086/- on deposit of sum of Rs.3,30,000/- and complainant deposited the said amount of Rs.3,30,000/- through cash for investment under MIS scheme on 17-01-2013.

          OP authority issued a MIS Policy on 17-01-2013 being No.5744501 and after completion of one month when complainant asked for monthly interest as assured but they released the principle amount of Rs.3,30,000/- which was invested under MIS Scheme without any interest and they simply stated that it will be paid by the OP after a short period and they advised the complainant to gi8ve small amount cheques for reinvestment and accordingly complainant issued three cheques bearing no.077731 for Rs.90,000/- dated 05-03-2013, 077732 for Rs.90,000/- dated 05-03-2013 and 077736 for Rs.50,000/- dated 06-03-2013 and at the time of such investment concerned authority did not supply scheme booklet and complainant also submit that they have not signed in proposal form in the said policy on 14-06-2013 but OPs issued three policy certificates in the name of Swapan Kumar Dutta against policy No.15889236  for Rs.90,000/-, Mala Dutta against policy no.15883850 for Rs.90,000/- and Subhasis Dutta against policy no.15885693 for Rs.50,000/-.

          Complainant has further stated that he invested Rs.40,000/- in cash money on 17-03-2013 for a MIS Scheme, according to the instruction of corporate sales manager, Branch Manager and Agent but no monthly interest was received after making the payment of this amount and neither any scheme booklet nor any policy certificate was issued by the concerned authority and complainant submitted that no proposal form was signed either by the complainant or by his family members at the concerned period only they gave him a money receipt against the cash payment of Rs.40,000/-.

          Fact remains against payment of Rs.2,30,000/- OP issued three certificates and on receipt of the certificates complainant met with OPs 1 to 7 and they assured that the dispute will be resolved but all in vain and no policy certificate received against the payment of Rs.40,000/- for one time MIS Scheme.

          Complainant’s main grievance is that the time of making the policy when the agent and corporate sales manager of HDFC Life came to his house, at that time the complainant suffered cardiological problem ad on this situation he was admitted to the R.G. Kar Medical College for his cardiological operation, due to this course of event of forcefully making policy was caused to suffer or harass him on both physically and mentally.  Practically they gave no chance to the complainant to realize the actual activities of the OPs, OPs invested the said money without consent of the complainant against different policies and for their deceitful manner of service and activities complainant suffered much and so, complainant made written complaint to the Officer, Customer Care and to the Grievance  Officer on 10-12-2013 and requested to refund the sum of Rs.2,30,000/- and Rs.40,000/- which is illegally invested under Unit Link Pension Policy and the policy name is HDFC Life Sampoorn Samriddhi Insurance Plan and another Classic Assured and the policy namely HDFC Life Pension Super Plus, against which they sent back their reply for the mismatch of the signature of Mr. Swapan Kumar Dutta on 14-09-2013 and 23-09-2013 and another representation mismatch of signature to Mrs. Mala Dutta on 14-09-2013 and 23-09-2013 and also to Mr. Subhasish Dutta on 14-09-2013 and 23-09-2013.

          Complainant tried to get the relief from the OPs made several representations and also made allegation about such issuance of policies against her will and wish and sent to the Grievance Officer wanted to know the facts why he could not get interest of 45 days on his investment of Rs.3,30,000/- and also why the company had not issued any policy certificate against his payment of Rs.40,000/- in cash which was received by the HDFC Life Insurance Agent, Mr. Nilendu Chakraborty and why one time payment insurance policy converted into three name policy etc. and Grievance Officer Cell sent a letter on 07-01-2014 to provide the colour copy of PAN Card, Pass Port and signature clearly visible and the bank attested signature verification letter and according to their direction the complainant submitted all the necessary documents to the Grievance Officer.  It is further submitted that investment with the HDFC through the Account being no.19261000019019 of the complainant and the concerned authority duly encashed the cheques and as such the complainant is entitled to get refund back the said money along with upto date interest  at the rate18 percent p.a. and in fact for the deficiency of service and negligent manner of service on the part of the OP complainant has been harassed and his money has been misused by the OP company as per their sweet will and choice for invested the sum at different heads and it is also apparent that duplicate signature was managed by the OPs for any application and fact remains complainant never intimated to purchase any insurance policy or endowment policy etc. so, in the circumstances, complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.2,30,000/- and Rs.40,000/- and compensation for harassment and suffering for mental agony and pain etc.

          On the other hand, OPs1 to 6 by filing written statement submitted that complainants have purchased the policy knowing fully well of the terms and conditions at annual premium of Rs.90,000/- each for 10 years and Rs.50,000/- for a period of 5 years and the written application was filed signed by the complainant so under any circumstances OPs have no fault and there was no deficiency on the part of the OP and practically complainant applied for one HDFC Life Insurance Super Plus and Sampura Samridhi plan and also applied for Pension Super Plus application but no doubt complainant raised allegation regarding mis-sale of the policy but on receipt of the complaint of the complainant OP made enquiry before issuance of all terms and condition of the plan clearly explained to the complainant as such the same cannot be determined as mis-sale.  Further OP Company vide its reply dated 28-11-2013 duly informed that it is not mis-sale and request of cancellation is not made within freelook period and they are unable to process the same.  But in fact the policies of the complainants 1 and 2 reached to discontinues status and the policy of the complainant 3 reached to lapsed status.

          As per provision of law if a discontinued policy is not revived then the amount allocated to the policy with accrued interest will be paid out as per prevailing law on completion of the lock in period specified in the policy schedule and in respect of the first policy for 15 days the policy will be altered to lapse status and no benefit will be paid and complainants were aware of the terms and condition for which the present complaint should be dismissed and they denied all the allegation of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the case.

Decision with Reasons

On overall evaluation of the argument of the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and also considering the copy of the policies including application form as filed by the OP it is clear that entire application form was filed up by consultant name and code Niladri Ghosh (00495606) and it was received at Kolkata Menoka East Branch on 09-03-2013.  Only signature of the complainant is found and most interesting factor is that the signature is collected from the House of the complainant or agent or consultant manager of the OP which is proved beyond any manner of doubt because complainant’s house is at Ariadaha, Beleghata whereas it was received at Kolkata Menoka East Branch code.  Admitted position is that complainant did not appear before the HDFC Life office.  Everything was done before agents and Sales Consultants and practically they allured that it was a pension plan and fact remains complainant was a retired person so, he had no such other income.  Similarly, electronic proposal form was prepared by the Niladri Ghosh in respect of Subhasis Dutta, yearly income is also not noted and source of income is also not verified and in his name policy was opened.  Similar incident occurred against Mala Dutta and it is proved that at the time of collecting the single MIS Policy the employees, agents, sales manager of the OP assured the old complainant and managed to procure his and his other family member’s signature, giving them no chance to read of the fake applications and in fact in this case the present OP, and their officials of OP managed to prepare those proposal form or application form by filing the same as their own will and converted it into three policies but truth is that complainant had no intention to purchase such policies when he was aware of the fact he has no other financial position to pay premium of Rs.2,30,000/- so, considering the above fact we are convinced to hold that practically the present HDFC Life never consulted with the complainant and at the office of the HDFC Life or any branch office the complainant or his daughter or wife or brother or son never appeared.  Only the signatures of the three persons were collected by their cheat agent, sales manager whose names have included in the complaint and subsequently, they converted it into three policies and this is the common practice of private insurance policy like Max Life, HDFC, ICICI, Sunlife and other insurance companies and it is being protected but there is none to check such sort of activities and this Forum can say without any hesitation that if the cheat agent, brokers, corporate sales managers are not sent to the house of the middle class families by this private companies in that case private insurance company shall be closed ultimately.  Truth is that ING Vyasa Bank lost their market for such sort of life insurance and ultimately entered into agreement to their business to Kotak Mahindra because they are not successful in cheating business so, for their above type of business nature that public at large lost their faith upon ING Vyasa Insurance and for which Bank and insurance company closed their business from 31-12-2014 and sold away their balance, business capital etc. to Kotak Mahindra only for the peoples rejection of such Bank and insurance company for there such sort of deceitful manner of business continued through their brokers, agents and corporate sales manager etc. so, in the present case we are convinced that the complainant has been deceived by the agents, corporate sales manager of the OPs and OPs have not denied the status of those persons as mentioned by the complainant and about their act of collecting the premium from the complainant and all the application form which are found not filled up by the complainants but only signatures were collected without their consent on the first page of the policies a declaration of the insured that he had realized the entire terms and condition and that terms and condition which shall be in Bengali and there must be a certificate of the insured that he has realized everything on proper reading and thereafter they sent it but that is absent though IRDA specifically mentioned that there must be an application form in Bengali in which all conditions shall be meaningful line shall be there but no such declaration is found in those policies that means by deceiving complainant they collected premium etc.  Truth is that in the year 1986 the C.P. Act was enacted Forum was created but within 28 years such sort of business of private bank and insurance company cannot be controlled by the Fora and that is the laches on the part of the Fora that means Fora has failed to create any such positive impact in the mind of service providers that the service provider or trader shall be responsible to protect the interest of the consumers and no doubt that is the failure of the Forum machineries and in fact, hue and cry is everywhere even about the poor activities in respect of implementation of the C.P. Act exploitation is still in existence considering the observation of the Great Economist Professor B.B. Bhattacharya of Vice-Chancellor of JNU, present fact we are convinced the consumers that Fora should be active to save consumers.

          As we have gathered from the entire materials on record that OPs have tried to grab the entire deposited amount but it is known to all that insurance policy is a social legislation, premium is made for the life protection and for ensuring his life when policy is found dead (lapse) the life of the insured is not insured and risk of his life is not covered then the deposit premium shall be returned to the said insured after deducting 5 percent as per IRDA guidelines in 2010, 2012 but that is not being followed this Forum has pointed out this type of traders of private insurance companies again and again but it is found that they are getting benefit from higher authorities for which exploiters are found benefited in many cases and no doubt social approach is absent for which the situation is such and in place of Grahok Jago now the consumes are within control of traders and service provider.  Practically this situation has been aggravated for the poor performance of the Machineries.  It is not this Forum’s expression it is the expression of so many research scholar of India and world but they criticized very vehemently in their research papers that they have expressed their opinion for the poor outlook of the forum machineries to protect the interest of the consumers and truth is that as because money is within the traders and service providers they are appointing legal hand and harassing persons to defend their case and they are getting relief and the complainant(consumers) are unable to contest and cases are being decided in favour of the traders and consumers does not get benefit but when Forum is very strong in their expression to implement this spirit of this case so called exploiters service providers are being controlled at least by the Forum.

          This HDFC Authorities Insurance Companies and bank against whom there are so many cases.  Many cases has been disposed of but we have gathered that this banking authority insurance company are deceiving the insured in most of the cases.

          This above observation is made by this Forum only on the ground that the people at large must have to realize what is the expression of the Fora, for what purpose the Fora has been established, whether it is only for continuing for 5 years by getting money or for saving the interest of the consumer.  Realization must be there in the mind of the Fora machineries otherwise crores of rupees can be spend for running the Forum machineries but only one percent of 10,000 consumer shall be benefited and this already create a common panic in the mind of the consumer is arisen and practically poorer consumers are very shaki to appear before the Forum because Forum is here and there but consumers are not for getting positive order for the consumer for various technical ground.

          In view of the above position and also the present facts and circumstances, we are convinced to hold that this insurance companies have their no desire to refund deposited premium amount when admittedly the insured have been refund but their practice is to grab it but then question is how and for what reason to grab the total deposit when it is a insurance policy not a mediclaim policy.  So, OPs are directed to refund entire amount as received by the OPs as premium of policies of the complainant after deducting 5 percent as service charge as per guidelines of IRDA of the year 2010 and 2012 and also to pay compensation of Rs.15000/- to the complainant on the ground that complainant has been harassed by the OPs and OP had their scope to refund their amount but they had not been refunded and another factor is that this senior citizen retired person was thrown to this Forum by the OPs and that is the business of the HDFC Life and bank in all cases they are not discharging their social responsibility moral responsibility to entertain and to give relief to the relief seeker and it is their only business to contest their upto National Commission and ultimately to throw the consumers/customers on the street by grabbing their premium amount but that cannot be.  Accordingly, the complaint succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest with a cost of Rs.10,000/- against the OPs.

          OPs are directed to jointly and severally to refund a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- deducting 5 percent service charge and also Rs.40,000/- which was received but no policy was given and further Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment to the complainant for such a manner and litigation cost including the decretal amount must be paid within 15 days from the date of this order to the complainant and if OPs disobeys the order in that case penal interest  at the rateRs.300/- per day shall be assessed till full satisfaction of the decree if that amount is collected it shall be deposited to this Forum by the OPs.

          Even if OPs are found reluctant to obey this order a proceeding u/s.27 of the C.P. Act shall be started against them for which they shall be prosecuted and further fine and penalty shall be imposed.