IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 06th day of October, 2020
Filed on 11. 07. 2017
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar, Bsc.LLB(President)
2. Smt. C.K.Lekhamma. BA. LLB(Member)
In
CC/No. 189/2017
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. K.Sasikumar 1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance
S/o Karunakaran Nair Co. Ltd, 5th Floor, Eureka Towers,
Karunalayam Link Road, Malad(W)
Kavalam.P.O Mumbai-400064
Kunnumma, Alappuzha
(Adv.K.N.Azhakeshan) 2. Branch Manager
HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd, Chengannur Branch Office Chengannur
(Adv.Saji Issaac.K.J for OP1&2)
3. Sri. Nidhin.P
153/8, Parambath
K.V. Puram, Karackal.P.O.
Thiruvalla
O R D E R
SRI. S. SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986
Complainant’s case recapitulated is as follows:-
Complainant is an engineer by profession and is doing business at Doha. 1st opposite party is an insurance company, 2nd opposite party is its Chengannur Branch Manager and 3rd opposite party is an agent. 3rd opposite party approached the complainant and introduced a policy by which if an amount of Rs. 1,99,999/- is paid by single premium after 5 years on maturity he will get an amount of Rs. 3.5 lakhs and also insurance coverage. Accordingly complainant was made to sign some printed forms at the office of the 2nd opposite party. An amount of Rs. 1,99,999/- was transferred from the account of the complainant on 22/9/2011 being the one time premium. Complainant was made to believe that it was a onetime premium and that he will get Rs.3.5 lakhs on maturity after 5 years.
After 5 years when the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party for receiving the amount it was told that he will not get the amount. Thereafter when he perused the policy documents it was found that it was not a onetime premium policy. On further enquiry it was revealed that his signature was forged in the applications and he was made to join in a different policy. In the said policy premia was to be paid for 5 years. Complainant never gave consent to join such a policy. Complainant has filed a complaint before insurance ombudsman and police. The act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice. Due to the act of the opposite parties complainant did not get insurance coverage for 5 years and he lost the amount paid as premium. Hence the complaint is filed for realizing an amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs and Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation.
2. Opposite party 1 and 2 filed version mainly contenting as follows:-
Complaint is an abuse of process of law and it is not maintainable. It is stated in the complaint that he has filed a complaint before the police regarding forgery. Hence the complaint involves complicated question of facts and law and involves lot of evidence and detailed enquiry, which cannot be decided in a summary way. The Hon’ble National Commission and Apex court have held that complaints which cannot be decided in a summary way are not maintainable before the Consumer Forums.
The 3rd opposite party is not an agent of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. The allegation that complainant was taken to the office of the 2nd opposite party is denied. There was no inducement to join the policy. The policy was issued as required by him in the proposal form signed by him. There is no assurance that on maturity he will get Rs.3,50,000/-. The averment that the policy document was not made available to him is false.
The policy was issued to the complainant based on the proposal form submitted by him. The complainant had availed the HDFC SL Classic Pension Insurance Plan bearing No.14627360 from 1st and 2nd opposite parties. The policy had commenced on 22/9/2011 and had an annual premium of Rs.1,99,999/- payable for a period of 5 years. The complainant had been given a free look period during which if any of the provisions stated in the policy or if the details in the proposal form were not acceptable to him, he could return the policy within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the policy. Complainant himself has admitted the fact of payment of the first annual premium of Rs.1,99,999/-. The act of payment of premium and non exercise of the cancelling option during the free look period can only deemed as an acceptance of the terms and conditions of the policy. He had accepted the policy in full satisfaction and is hence bound by the terms and conditions of the policy.
Contract of insurance is a contract uberimmae fidei and parties are bound to observe utmost good faith. The policy documents provided to the complainant at the time of issuance of policy contains specific details regarding the sum assured and the final payout at the time of maturity of the policy. He had only paid the 1st annual premium of Rs.1,99,999/- and had subsequently withheld all future premium. As per the conditions of the policy if any premium remains unpaid 15 days after the due date during the first three years of the policy, the policy will be altered to lapsed status and no benefits would be payable. The company may choose at its sole discretion to offer a discretionary surrender value. The terms and conditions of policy clearly state that the guaranteed minimum surrender value would be zero in respect of premiums paid in the first year. Complainant is not entitled for any amount as mental agony and compensation. Hence the complaint may be dismissed.
3. On the above pleadings following points arise for consideration:-
1.Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and thereby complainant is entitled to receive Rs.3,50,000/- as claimed by him?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation.
4. Reliefs and cost?
4. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2 from the side of the complainant. Opposite parties have not adduced any oral evidence Ext.B1 was marked by them and Ext.X1 was produced.
5. Point No.1:-
On 14/11/2017 an IA was filed as IA No.44/2018 to raise maintainability. On 19/5/2018 an order was passed stating that since evidence already recorded in CC case, this petition will be considered at the time of the final disposal of the complaint. This complaint is filed on an allegation that an amount of Rs. 1,99,999/- was collected on 22/9/2011 by opposite parties and the policy was issued to him. He was made to believe that it is a onetime premium policy and on maturity after 5 years he will get an amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs. It is alleged in the complaint that the policy documents was not handed over to him and after maturity period when he contacted the opposite parties he came to know that it was a policy by which he had to pay premium on all 5 years. It is alleged that his signature was forged in the policy documents which was shown to him after 5 years. He was not given the policy documents at the time when he joined the policy purposefully. So complainant is alleging forgery of his signature in the application forms. Further it is stated that he has approached the insurance ombudsman and the police officials with complaint regarding forgery. According to the learned counsel appearing for opposite parties 1 and 2 since forgery is alleged detailed enquiry is required and the complaint cannot be disposed in a summary way. Volumness evidence will have to be adduced to prove the case and so it is not maintainable before Consumer Commission and it is to be filed before the Judicial court either civil or criminal. In support of this contention is relying upon two decisions of the National Commission. First one is an order dtd. 29/1/2015 of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (P.N. Khanna Vs. Bank of India and another) which was an appeal filed against the order of the State Commission. Relying upon earlier orders it was held that when there are allegation of forgery, fraud and cheating, adjudication whereof, requires elaborate evidence, the same cannot be decided, by a Consumer Fora, proceedings before which, are summary in nature.
In Rajat Kanti Roy Vs. Regional Director, SBI Life Insurance Co. ltd. and Another (CPJ 2016 3 221) it was held by the National Commission on 1/2/2016.
“The Fora below, in tandem, ordered that since there was allegation of forged signatures, therefore, the Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to decide this case. We fully agree with them. This question entails intricate questions which will entail evidence of handwriting experts. All these questions cannot be decided in a summary manner. The cross examination will play an important role in this case. The Fora below have not missed the wood for tree, we add our voice to theirs and dismiss the Revision Petition.”
Here in this case the allegation of the complainant is that his signature was obtained in an application by which he had joined a policy for which one time premium was fixed. However though amount was collected from him the policy documents were not handed over. After 5 years when he approached the insurance company for getting amount it was noticed that his signatures were forged and the policy documents were converted by which he had to pay premia for 5 years. He has also stated that he had already approached the insurance ombudsman and police officials alleging forgery. In said circumstances as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties relying upon the decisions of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, this compliant is not maintainable before this commission. This point is found against the complainant.
6. Point No. 2 and 3:-
PW1 is the complainant in this case. He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked as Ext.A1 Annual premium statement and Ext.A2 policy document dtd. 27/9/2011. Opposite parties have not adduced any oral evidence. Ext.B1 letter dtd. 27/9/2011 addressed to the complainant along with policy documents was marked. The original application of the complainant was produced and marked as Ext.X1.
The case of PW1, complainant is that he is doing business in Doha. While he was at Kavalam, the 3rd opposite party who is an agent of 1st and 2nd opposite parties took him to the office of the 2nd opposite party and induced him to join a policy offered by the 1st opposite party. He was made to believe that if he pay Rs.1,99,999/- as a single premia he will get Rs.3.5lakhs after 5 years and there will be insurance coverage also. Accordingly on 22/9/2011 he transferred Rs. 1,99,999/- to opposite parties. The policy documents were not handed over to him. However after 5 years when he went to collect the maturity amount it was noticed that he had joined in a policy for which he had to pay 5 premia for 5 years. According to him his signatures were forged in the application form and he never knew that he had to pay premia for 5 years. The policy he joined was a single payment premia hence according to him his signatures were forged by the opposite parties and his name was included in a different policy. So he has claimed the policy amount of Rs. 3.5 lakhs along with compensation.
The allegation of the complainant is denied by the opposite parties 1 and 2 in the version. According to them the complainant was fully aware at the time of joining the policy and even he was given a free look period for one month and during that time he had an option to return the policy within 30 days. This complaint is filed with false allegations. It was also contended that since the complainant has alleged forgery this commission has no jurisdiction as held by various decisions of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Though while considering point No.1 we have already found that this complaint is not maintainable before this commission since the parties have adduced evidence we are disposing the case on merits. As discussed earlier the case of PW1, Complainant is that he joined a policy by which he had to pay one time premia and the offer was that after 5 years he will get Rs.3.5 lakhs and the policy coverage for 5 years. Admittedly he paid the amount on 22/9/2011. His contention is that since he had to go abroad urgently he could not collect the policy document. Ext.X1 is the proposal form, from which it is seen that the term of policy was 10 years and the premium paying term was 5 years and frequency of payment was yearly. PW1 has put the signature in the relevant pages of Ext.X1 document. Now his allegation is that since he had to go urgently he could not collect the policy document. The application is seen signed on 22/9/2011. In Ext.X1 he has stated that he is going aborad after the current visit on 25/10/2011. So the contention that since he had to go abroad urgently he could not collect the document appears to be incorrect. Ext.B1 is a copy of letter dtd. 27/9/2011 addressed to the complainant in which the policy details are enclosed. There is no reason to believe that he had not received the letter. Further his contention that he has not enquired about the policy for 5 years cannot be swallowed without a pinch of salt. A person who had invested about Rs. 2,00,000/- in an insurance policy will definitely enquire about the policy details and will collect the policy documents from the office if it is not sent by post. Further while considering point No.1 we have already found that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission since forgery is alleged. It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2013 KHC 4040(Expert Credit Guarantee Corporation of India ltd. Vs. M/s Garg Sons International).
“ It is not permissible for the court to substitute the terms of the contract itself, under the garb of construing terms incorporated in the agreement of insurance. No exceptions can be made on the ground of equity. The liberal attitude adopted by the court, by way of which it interferes in the terms of an insurance agreement, is not permitted. The same must certainly not be extended to the extent of substituting words that were never intended to form a part of the agreement”.
So even if the complaint is maintainable before this Commission it can be allowed only in terms of Ext.B1. Admittedly PW1 had paid only single premia. As per the terms and conditions of the policy if only a single premia is paid the amount will be lapsed. In said circumstances the complainant is not entitled for any relief claimed by him and so these points are found against the complainant.
7. Point No.4:-
In the result complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs.2000/-(Two thousand).
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him correct by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 06th day of October, 2020.
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - K.Sasikumar(Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of Annual Premium Statement.
Ext.A2 - Copy of Insurance Policy.
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Copy of Insurance Policy
Ext.X1 - Proposal Form
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
