Order-30.
Date-02/09/2016.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
In short, the case of the complainant is that O.P.-1 had sold one time mutual fund investment policy to the mother of the complainant through O.P.-2. The Agent of O.P.-2 assured that one time investment policy with easy returnable benefits and accordingly a sum of Rs.5,000/- was deducted by O.P.-1 from bank account of Chinmoyee Kumar, the mother of the complainant on 30/12/2014. From the letter of O.P.-1 the mother of the complainant came to know that Rs.2538/- was deducted from the bank account being No.05910100001174 regularly and on that day for the first time he came to know that his mother was the Proposer and he is the Insured of the said policy. After demise of his mother on 04/12/2014 the complainant by sending letter dated 31/12/2014 to the O.P.-1 asked for return back the entire deposited amount. The complainant also asked to O.P.-1through letter dated 21/04/2015 to supply the original policy but the O.P. did not pay heed. O.Ps.-1 and 2 by adopting unfair trade practice have deceived the complainant and by way of false representation sold the insurance policy. Complainant for getting redressal appeared before this Forum for some prayer.
O.P.-1 has appeared and contested this case by filing W.V. denying the allegations of the complainant stating inter aila that the complaint is false, frivolous and baseless and the case is not maintainable.
In the month of February-2012 this O.P. issued one HDFC Saving Assurance Plan policy in the name of complainant as per application of the complainant and complainant was well aware about the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant was duly signed the mandate “Form Direct debit” for an amount of Rs.2500/- towards the premium amount and the said policy was for a term of 10 years with a monthly premium of Rs.2500/- for ten years and the original policy documents were received by one Chinmoyee Kumar, mother of the complainant on 14/02/2012 and within free-look period i.e. 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy the complainant had an option to cancel the policy but he did nothing. On 31/12/2014 the complainant intimated this O.P. to cancel the policy and refund the deposited amount. This O.P. had no deficiency of service or negligence and pray for dismissal of the case.
O.P.-2 also contested the case by filing W.V. denying the allegations of the complainant stating inter alia that this O.P. is mere broker and insurance policy was issued by the O.P.-1 and insurance premium has been deposited to the account of O.P.-1 and the contract was made between the complainant and the O.P.-1 and O.P.-2 was not a party to the said contract. The complainant not only carefully read and understood the terms and conditions but also duly filled, signed executed and submitted the proposal form along with insurance premium amount through A/c payee cheque being No.273479 favouring to O.P.-1. O.P.-2 then handed over the documents along with petitions to the O.P.-1. Thereafter, the O.P.-1 on 13/02/2012 issued the policy certificate being No.14921658 which was received by the complainant on 14/02/2012 through courier service. If any claim would lodged by the complainant it should be claimed against O.P.-1 as the policy was issued by the O.P.-1. The complainant raised false, frivolous and vexatious complaint with sole intention to defame the reputation and to extract money from this O.P. As such this complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Point for Decision
- Whether the complaint case is maintainable?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
We have carefully perused the complaint petition, W.Vs., Evidence, documents and considered the argument advanced by the parties.
Complainant has stated in his complaint petition that O.P.-2 by alluring misrepresentation and taking advantage of old age of his mother Chinmoyee Kumar had made over her signatures on pages blank papers and deducted Rs.5,000/- from bank account of his mother by O.P.-1. The complainant first came to know from the letter dated 31/12/2014 sent by the O.P.- 1 that his mother was the proposer of the policy and the policy was issued in his name where his daughter is the nominee. On 31/12/2014 after demise of the mother of the complainant he intimated the O.P. to refund the deposited amount but O.Ps. did not pay heed.
It appears from the application form, KYC form and other require documents of the O.Ps. that the complainant himself signed the application form and form of mandate for direct debit through ECS and after receiving said documents through O.P.-2 O.P.-1 issued HDFC Savings Assurance Bajaj Capital Plan 10 years term policy vide No.14921658 which commenced from 07/02/2012 and sent the original policy with documents to the complainant through courier service which was received on 14/02/2012 by the mother of the complainant. From the date of issuance of the policy in the name of complainant monthly premium amount of Rs.2500/- is being regularly debited from the savings A/c of the complainant and it has been deposited to the account of O.P.-1. As per IRDA Rules there is a provision within 15 days i.e. free look period from the date of receipt of the policy documents the policy holder has an option to cancel the policy in question and also put direction to the bank to stop payment of O.P.-1 but the complainant did not take any step in time rather monthly premium has been regularly debited from the savings account of the complainant. Insurance policy was issued in the month of February-2012 and the complainant requested the O.P.-1 in the month of December-2014 for cancellation of the policy in question which the O.P. cannot do as per agreement of the policy. So in this context O.P.-1 has no deficiency in service. Moreover, the complainant is an educated person and by profession a practicing doctor, he was supposed to read each and every terms and conditions of the policy. There is no oral rules and conditions of the policy. Policy is a contract between the Insurer and Insured. Rights and obligations under the policy governed by the terms of contract which are binding upon parties.
Top of all, complainant is paying premium regularly till date and monthly premium is being debited from his account and within his knowledge. The plea of false representation allegedly does not sustain. Complainant cannot withdraw any amount before the date maturity or nap the fruit before its maturity.
O.P.-2 is a mere agent / broker who sold the policy on behalf of O.P.-1 who only provides information that framed by the O.P.-1. So O.P.-2 has no role to cancel the policy or refund the money.
In view of the above discussions, we find from the documents that there is no question of mis sold the policy and the allegations of complainant regarding misrepresentation or mislead for selling the insurance policy has no leg to stand. Policy in question is a 10 years term policy. So either policy holder has to wait for its maturity or surrender before maturity. The complainant has filed this case at a prematured stage.
In view of the above, we think that O.Ps. have no deficiency in service or they have practiced unfair trade. We think for the reasons as discussed above that the complaint file is frivolous and vexatious.
The case of the complainant fails.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost against the O.Ps. The complainant is to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited to this Forum for frivolous and vexatious complaint.
