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

          Complainants by filing this complaint have submitted that their relations as husband and wife and wife having status of NRI and with intention to settle at Kolkata to return from abroad and search out a resident and after that they contacted HDFC Bank for home loan when they advised them to get home loan the complainants are required to invest in the policy of the OP to increase the credibility since the complainants are NRI the complainant had no other alternative but to accept the proposal of the Bank and had agreed for one time investment of around Rs.1,50,000/- and accordingly complainant issued four cheques for a sum of Rs.1,67,753/- for the four policies being Nos.14610326, 14705083, 14610385 and 14684486 issued by the OP in the name of the complainants with payment term varying between 7 years to 20 years but the policy documents were not sent directly to the complainant but it was collected by the agent of the OP and same in the custody of the OPs agent and subsequently, when no sanction of loan was made by HDFC complainant went to the Bank and collected the policy and found that there are several policies but not one policy for single investment.  Thereafter, complainant mailed to the OP on 18-09-2012 mentioning therein the points of differences and also the act of the agent and also communicated that the policy documents were delivered to their agent and there from the same was handed over to the complainant but not directly and by that act complainant cheated and being dissatisfied about the conduct and business policy complainant prayed for cancellation of the request of the policy and the said communication was replied by the OP through mail dated 05-10-2012 with comment that “as we have not received your cancellation request within the 30 days free look period, we wish to inform you that we are unable to process a refund of premiums paid towards this policy.”  Fact remains complainant communicated through a number of communication to all the officers of the OP in the hierarchy and being no action has been taken to such communication to the grievance cell of the IRDA but fact remains that false commitment for organizing and sanctioning required amount of Home Loan on condition of one time investment in the policy of the OP and misleading policy information and instead of one time investment, selling policy of regular premium and withholding the policy booklet and other documents for considerable period of time to prevent the complainants to know the true nature of the policy and also unfair act on the part of the OP for sanctioning home loan and also for preparing such policy this complaint is filed.  But truth is that complainant was completely cheated by the OP and their agent and for which complainant has prayed for refund of their deposited memo and also cancellation of the entire policy and prayed for redressal.

          On the other hand, OP by filing written version submitted, in fact, complainants applied for two traditional policies, one in the name of complainant no.1 and another for complainant no.2 and as per the terms the complainants were required to pay yearly premium @Rs.49.963/- and Rs.51,790/- respectively for a period of 7 years and the policy period was for 15 years and it was duly filled up and signed the application forms and upon their written applications two policies being No.14610326 and No.14610385 respectively were issued in favour of the complainants and complainants issued standing instruction mandate for direct debit of insurance premium from the bank accounts which were subsequently cancelled by the complainants and OP sent the original policy documents to the complainants on 26-09-2011 which were duly received by them and it is a contract between the parties and complainants did not made any allegation against that document within 30 days from the date of receipt and did not opt for cancellation within that period and further complainant again approached the OP in the month of October, 2011 and applied for another policy and paid only premium of Rs.15,232/- for a term of 20 years and policy document being no.14684486 was issued in favour of the complainant did not cancel within time.  So, as per terms of the policy complainant and OPs are guided and there is no scope to cancel the same and entire allegation is false and it was not a mis-sell on the part of the OP and so, the entire complaint should be dismissed and there is no scope for refunding the said amount.

Decision with Reasons

On hearing the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and also considering the materials as produced by the OP that is the copies of proposal application forms, it is clear that proposal form were all filled by the agent or bank employees not by the complainants and another factor is that all the policy forms were of dated 19-09-2011 and it was secured by the agent on 19-09-2011 but OP has also failed to prove that policy document was received by the complainant personally or it was sent by the registered post with A/D or by any other method.  But fact remains when the complainant came to know about that fact they forthwith on 29-09-2011 prayed for cancellation of the same and also prayed for supply of the copy of the document of the policy but OP did not pay any heed to that.  Fact remains in the complaint complainant has alleged that agent was the wife of one of the employee of the OP which came to the knowledge of complainant from Bank Manager and she after that did not meet them when they tried to contact with her.  Practical approach in this regard in respect of the agent is absent.  Truth is that no part of the policy was filled in by the complainants.  But same were made by the agents. Another factor is that from all the copies of the said proposal form it is found that same are only signed and case started whereas it is found that Shyam Chakraborty was the Financial Consultant and Business Development Manager of the OP prepared this entire proposal forms.  But it is fact that this is the business policy of the HDFC and they are alluriung many persons in such a manner and receiving cheques stating that the one time investment shall be prepared and documents would be supplied and in all cases so far we have handled so many cases, this OP Bank takes signature and entertain the customer by giving snacks, tea etc. with smiled face with sweet tune and customers are being allured even the blank cheques are issued along with sample signature what is proved.  These complainants were in need of home loan for which as per direction of the OP as precondition of the home loan they deposited Rs.1,50,000/- for one time investment and other charges i.e. Rs.1,66,000/- and odd only for processing the home loan etc. and also one time investment but OPs after taking signature of the complainant in blank forms converted it into two or three documents of policy but home loan was refused and that such a business acts the private banks and private insurance company have taken in almost all the cases and particularly in West Bengal in rural areas, village people at large are being deceived by their agents who are in such a manner collecting policy and in this case fact remains when complainant forthwith prayed for cancelling the same after getting the same from the agent then there is no fault on the part of the complainants and that such a practice of the OP bank not to send original documents to the customer  and to handover to the agents is a business tactics of the OP companies to spread several agents at several areas for the purpose of collecting policies from different persons and that agents are cheating the public at large and that is the truth and in this case no doubt complainants have prayed for cancellations of the policies and no doubt the insurance law is social legislation and there is no legal cause on the part of the insurance to swallow the entire deposited amount when service large and other charges has been taken so at best 10% shall be deducted out of the deposited amount for cancellation charge and balance amount shall be returned to the complainant when  complainant is unwilling to proceed with such insurance and when he has stated that he never did it then it is unethical act on the part of the bank and its agent and no doubt it is unfaithful service on the part of the OP.  In the above situation we are convinced that by the agent of the OPs the complainant was treated.  Fact remains complainant had no house so he prayed for housing loan and as precondition he deposited Rs.1,66,000/- and odd for one time investment in the policy for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and also other amount for processing the home loan but OP managed to refuse the same in different ways because they already collected signatures in blank forms and OPs as NRI relied upon the agent of the Bank authorities and truth is that in this regard the matter was handled by General Financial Consultant, Shyam Chakraborty and Business Development Manager, Abhishek Bhattacharya and they manipulated the same and prepared such fake insurance policy.  So, it is proved by the entire forms which were filled by them as per wish of the OPs Developer/Officer and Official Consultant and it is their business to deceive the customer in such a fashion and to throw them into future trouble and that is the common practice which is being followed by all the private banks and insurance companies but none is here and there to check and to control the practice of the private banks and insurance companies.  Then who shall have to save such customers from the hands of such private banks and private insurance company but we feel that the customer must not be cheated.  Private bank and insurance company must be fair in their trade and they must not have to accept any application from any customer if it is not filled up by the customer henceforth but generally the service of the agent or the consultant or Development Manager are always immoral and unethical and when the applications were not found filled up by the complainants then we are convinced that all misdeeds was done by the OPs agent, Financial Consultant and Development Manager and for their immoral activities complainants suffered.  So, we are convinced to hold that complainants are entitled to get entire amount against the policies treated as cancelled but bank may take only 10% out of that and return the balance and that is the observation of the National Commission in so many judgment that when customers express their dissatisfaction about the opening of the policy in that case policy shall be cancelled and Insurance Company or Bank shall have to return the entire amount after deducting 10% and adopting that principle we are directing the OP to cancel all the policies and return the deposited premium of the said three policies after deducting 10%.  In this regard we have relied upon one judgment of National Commission passed by Hon’ble Justice B.N.P. Singh in Revision Petition No.3235 of 2009 against the order dated 12-02-2009 in SC Case No.FA No.230 of 2008 of the State Commission, West Bengal and that order was passed on 07-04-2010 and practically original complaint of this forum in respect of C.C. No.360 of 2006 and that order was passed against Bajaj Allianz.

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest with a cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) against the OPs.

          OPs are directed to refund deposited premiums against policy No.14610326, 14705083, 14610385 and 14684486 after deducting 10% of the same to the complainant at once.

          For adopting an unfair path by the Financial Consultant and Development Manager of the OP Bank OPs shall have to pay compensation of Rs.4,000/-(Rupees Four thousand only) to the complainant without any fail.

          OPs are directed to comply the order within 15(fifteen) days from the date of this order failing which penal action shall be started against them and prosecution shall be started against them for violation of the Forum’s order and even further penalty shall be imposed over the same and for non-compliance of the Forum’s order within stipulated period, for each days delay penal damages @Rs.200/- shall be assessed at full satisfaction of the decree.