Order-55.
Date-05/01/2017.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant’s case in short, is that Miss Priya Roy is the minor daughter of the complainant and she is the holder of Kids A/c. No.11301460000103 which was being maintained by the complainant with the OP2. The complainant being the natural guardian and father of his daughter, used to operate the said account. In the 3rd week of September, 2012 a lady representative of the OP2 visited the complainant’s office and induced the complainant to invest in a recurring deposit scheme of OP2 on the representation that it would yield higher rate of interest. Complainant agreed to invest in the recurring deposit scheme. The said representative took out an application form of HDFC Standard Life Insurance Policy under the name of Classic Assure. She also obtained the signature of the complainant on such form. Complainant in good faith put one signature on Classic Assure Insurance Form on the representation of the lady but did not issue any payment cheque orsigned any payment mandate. The complainant states that he never intended to avail any insurance policy though he was interested to open a recurring deposit scheme with OP2 which would yield higher rate of interest. Subsequently, the complainant was utterly shocked to learn that an amount of Rs.25,000/- was debited from the aforesaid Kid’s Account No.11301460000103 in September, 2012 towards payment of one HDFC Standard Life Insurance Policy. The complainant was taken aback since he never signed any payment mandate in order to give any written instruction for payment. The complainant alleges that there has been deficiency in services by the OPs and they had also adopted unfair trade practice as well. It is also alleged by the complainant that the signature of the complainant had been forged at various places of the application form it is also alleged that OPs1 and 2 have collided with one another and wrongfully withdrew Rs.25,000/- from the aforesaid Kid Account by adopting unfair trade practice. The complainant also caused service of legal notice dated 12-11-2012 for crediting of a sum of Rs.25,000/- in the said Kid’s Account but the parties did not take any action. Hence, this case.
OP1 has contested the case in filing written version contending, inter alia, that the instant complaint is not maintainable either in law or in fact. It is stated that in or about September, 2012 the complainant approached the answering OP through its Corporate Agent and expressed his willingness to avail a life insurance policy for her minor daughter. The agent furnished details about several policies. The complainant after understanding the same applied for HDFC SL Pro Growth Super II Plan with an yearly premium of Rs.25,000/-. He duly filled up and signed the application form. The complainant also signed the standing instruction mandate for direct deduction of the premium amount from the account of her minor daughter operated by him. The original policy document was also sent through Blue Dart Courier on 29-09-2012. The said original policy also contained an option to cancel the policy within free-look period if the policy holder is not satisfied with the same. After receipt of the original policy document the complainant never raised any dispute or made any request for cancellation of the same. The allegation of the complainant that the policy was mis-sold to him and he never paid the sum is baseless and frivolous.
OP2 HDFC Bank has also contested the case in filing written objection contending, inter alia, that the case is not maintainable either in law or in fact and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that the complainant does not have any jural relationship with the answering OP as much as the subject matter is concerned. It is also stated that the answering OP is only a banker of the complainant and has not rendered any insurance service to the complainant, neither received any premium, charges or about from the complainant towards any insurance policy nor issued any insurance policy to the complainant. It is stated that the amount was debited on 17-09-2012 but no dispute received from the complainant about the debit entry in the account. It is stated that the said sum of Rs.25,000/- was debited from the Kid’s A/c.11301460000103 in September, 2012 towards payment of the Pro Growth Insurance Policy Plan form on the basis of debit mandate form for the purpose of transmitting funds from the said Kid Account for the purpose of making demand draft towards payment of the said policy premium. It is stated that OP2 has only carried the complainant’s instruction of transmitting Rs.25,000/- from the Kid’s account as per the written instruction issued by the complainant and therefore, OP2 is not liable to crediting the said sum back to the said account of the complainant. This OP has prayed for dismissal of the case.
Points for Decision
- Whether the OPs have been deficient in rendering service to the complainant?
- Whether the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice towards issuance of the subject policy in favour of the complainant in the name of his minor daughter?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
We have travelled over the documents on record, i.e. Xerox copy of the Bank statement for the period from 1st September, 2012 to 31st March, 2013, copy of the letter dated 12-11-2012 issued by complainant to OP2, copy of the insurance policy along with other documents, Xerox copy of Unit Link Proposal Form, Xerox copy of mandate form for direct credit, copies of legal notice of both sides Hand Writing Expert report and other documents on record.
It appears that the instant case is filed by one Shri Prosun Roy representing his minor daughter Miss Priya Roy as her natural guardian and father. It appears minor Miss Priya Roy maintained a Kid Savings Account No.11301460000103 in the HDFC Bank and the said account was operated for her by Shri Prosun Roy as her natural guardian. It also appears that the complainant obtained one insurance policy from OP1 under the name of Pro Growth Super II Policy No.15453387. The complainant alleges that he never applied for the same. It has also alleged that the signatures on the said Pro Growth Super II Policy papers/Proposal Form were forged to sell the insurance policy. It is also alleged that an amount of Rs.25,000/- was debited from the aforesaid Kid’s A/c. of HDFC Bank on 17-09-2012 without his mandate. It is also alleged by the complainant that he did not sign on any payment mandate. From the documents on record we find that the original policy is dated 25-09-2012 and the policy document was sent through Blue Dart Courier via AWB No.46172731485 on 29-09-2012 which was received by the complainant shortly thereafter. From the insurance policy it also appears that the subject policy is dated 25-09-2012 and it was sent through Courier on 29-09-2012. We find that the said original policy contained an option to cancel the policy within free-look period if the policy holder is not satisfied with the same. We have also seen the Xerox copy of the letter contained option to cancel the policy within free-look period but we find that after receipt of the original policy document the complainant never raised any dispute or made any request for cancellation of the same. We have also perused the proposal forms containing the signature of the complainant. OP2 as we find has filed a Xerox copy of Account Payee cheque being No.009833 dated 31-08-2013 signed by the complainant Prosun Roy drawn on Allahabad Bank amounting to Rs.4,100/- in favour of HDFC Bank card no.4617863002783056. We find that the signatureappearing in the said cheque is identical with the signatures appearing on the proposal form for unit linked proposal form and also with the mandate form for direct credit. The report of Handwriting Examiner is not also favouring the complainant. Examiner of Questioned Document has stated that the admitted signatures marked ‘X’ were produced under Xerox process and as such no opinion is possible regarding other act of disputed signatures without comparing with the admitted signatures of ‘X’. We are afraid that there is no plausible explanation causing before us why the complainant did not produce his original admitted signature before the Handwriting Expert. So, we are not in a position to accept the version of the complainant that the insurance policy was sold by the OPs by forging his signature on all the insurance papers. The signatures as we find were sent to signature expert but the complainant failed to produce original admitted signatures before the Handwriting Examination Expert. Moreover, we find that the signature of the complainants appearing on each page of the petition of the complaint are also identical with the signatures appearing on the proposal form Bank mandate and also on the cheque of Allahabad Bank being No.009833 dated 31-01-2013 signed by the complainant.
We also find that OPs 1 and 2 filed Evidence in Chief independently and separately corroborating their respective case in their respective written version. Complainant did not file any questionnaire as against the evidences of the OPs. So, the evidences on behalf of the OPs remain uncontroverted and unchallenged. It also appears that the amount was debited from the Kids A/c.on 27-09-2012 but no dispute was raised by the complainant about the debit entry in the account thereafter. It is also stated by OP2 that the letter dated 12-11-2012 is a fake and manufactured document which cannot be relied upon. This OP has also stated that the complainant contacted OP2 by way of legal notice dated 24-01-2013 and not before that. It is not clear before us whether the complainant caused service of the alleged letter dated 12-01-2012 upon OP2 alleging the debit of an amount of Rs.25,000/- from the Kids account because complainant failed to produce any document to show that he caused service of notice dated 12-11-2013 upon the OP2.
It appears that a plain reading of letter dated 25-09-2012 issued by OP1 clearly provides cancellation in the free-look period that is within 28-10-2012. Complainant did not opt for cancellation of policy during 30 days free-look period and this goes to show that the policy was issued as per the insurance requirement of the complainant. Amount was also debited on 17-09-2012 but no dispute was raised by the complainant about the said debiting entry in the account immediately thereafter. We also find that the complainant contacted OP2 long after freelook period by way of legal notice dated 24-01-2013.
As a logical corollary of the discussion as made and finding in earlier paragraphs and having regard to the materials on record and since the Evidences of the OPs remain unchallenged and uncontroverted we are constrained to hold that the complainant has failed to establish his case.
In result, the case merits no success.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs.
We make no order as to cost.
