BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.162 of 2016
Date of Instt. 07.04.2016
Date of Decision: 13.02.2018
Manpreet Singh Gill s/o Harbans Singh Gill resident of 47, School Line, Quedgeley, Gloucester, GL24PW, United Kingdom through Power of Attorney Harbans Singh Gill.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, 1st and 2nd Floor, Gupta Chambers Opp. Commissioner Office, Jalandhar City through its Branch Manager/Authorized Officer.
2. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Chairman/Authorized Officer, 12th and 13th Floor, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi road, Mahalaxmi, Maharastra, Mumbai-400 011.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Sh. Rajeev Garg, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. AK Gandhi, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 and 2.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant Manpreet Singh Gill is an NRI and currently residing in United Kingdom. So, the present complaint has been filed through his father and duly constituted Attorney Harbans Singh Gill, who is also well conversant with the facts of the present complaint.
2. The OP No.2 is engaged in business of Life Insurance in India having its branches all over India including Punjab and OP No.1 is one such Branch Office at Jalandhar. In the month of October, 2013, the agents of the OPs approached the father of the complainant at his residence at Village Gill and lured the father of the complainant to invest various schemes floated by the OPs with the assurance of handsome returns. Besides, mentioning various benefits in the investing the OPs, it was also told to the father of the complainant that the investment, so made will be one time and there will be no monthly or yearly premium and was also told that you will get three times of the deposit after three years. The father of the complainant being a rustic villager came under the trap of agents of the OPs and agreed to invest in the OPs under the hope of better return. Consequently, the father of the complainant invested Rs.12,99,281/- (Rs.75,281/- + Rs.6,00,000/- + Rs.6,24,000/-) in the name of the complainant on different intervals. Thereafter, the complainant returned from UK to India in December, 2013. After staying few days, the complainant saw bundle of papers containing the brochures of the policy No.15540837, 15791609 and 15791663 issued on 31.10.2012, 04.02.2013 and 04.02.2013 respectively and copy of alleged form of life insurance policies, which the complainant never consented nor signed. Even the signature of the complainant had been forged as the complainant was not in India on the relevant day. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the OP No.2 and filed a complaint narrating all the actual facts and requested for cancellation of the policies, however the said complaint was not entertained by the OPs. Consequently, the complainant moved the complaint before the Ombudsman and after lot of hassles, the insurance Ombudsman, vide award dated 01.12.2014 directed the OPs to return the entire amount to the complainant after cancellation of the alleged policies.
3. That the agents of the OPs lured/misguided the father of the complainant to invest in the OPs by wrongly and illegally misquoting the benefits of alleged investments. Further, they forged the signature of the complainant on a form of life insurance policy for personal gain, thereby committing fraud and forgery with the complainant as well as his father resulting a great loss to the complainant in terms of money as well as mental tension, agony and loss of health as well. Thus, the OPs are liable for the acts of its agents. After a lot of hassles and with the direction of the Insurance Ombudsman, the OPs cancelled the policies and returned the money back to the complainant, however no FDR interest has been given to the complainant for the period they used the money and as such, there is a great harassment to the complainant and his father and moreover, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and thus, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs may be directed to pay damages for mental tension, agony, inconvenience, harassment, physically and medical expenses, to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum as well as cost of the litigation, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.
4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed the reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is false, vexatious and has been filed with a malafide intention to harass the OP by misusing the process of law and to avail undue advantages. It is an attempt to waste the precious time of this Forum and hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering OPs and the same is liable to be dismissed. The matter has already been adjudicated by the Court of Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh and as the award passed by the Court of Ombudsman dated 17.12.2014, the OPs have already complied with the order passed by the Court of the Ombudsman by sending three cheques, which were duly received and encashed by the complainant. When the matter has already been settled full and finally between the complainant and OPs, so, the question of payment of the interest and compensation does not arise. Now the complainant cannot be allowed to reopen the matter again and again. So, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed for being after thought one and further averred that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint and even the complainant has suppressed the material facts from the Forum and as such, no cause of action accrued to the complainant to file the present complaint. On merits, the contents of the complaint are controverted by the OPs and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
5. In order to prove his case, Attorney of the complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith some documents Ex. C-1 to Ex.C-16 and then closed the evidence.
6. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A alongwith some documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4 and then closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
8. The factum in regard to purchase of three insurance policies by the complainant, though legally or fraudulently, is not in dispute because as per own version of the complainant, the total amount of the said insurance policy has been already refunded back to the complainant on the direction of the Insurance Ombudsman, vide order dated 01.12.2014.
9. Now question is only in regard to getting interest on the aforesaid insurance amount as well as compensation for harassment to the complainant and litigation expenses. The claim of the complainant has been controverted by the OP, simply on the ground that the matter in question has already been adjudicated by the Insurance Ombudsman, vide award dated 17.12.2014, copy of the award is placed on the file by the complainant, which is Ex.C-5, rather the complainant also categorically stated in the complaint that he got the insurance premium amount on the basis of the aforesaid award of the Ombudsman and further OP alleged that when the matter has been already fully and finally settled between the parties, then the complainant has no right to re-agitate the same matter again and again, therefore, this complaint is false, frivolous and is liable to be dismissed with costs.
10. We are fully agree with the contention raised by the OP that once a matter has been adjudicated by any Court, Arbitrator or any other Legal Body, then the same cannot be re-agitated again in any other Forum/Court rather the remedy is only with the aggrieved party to go in an appeal or revision against that order and similarly, if the complainant is not satisfied with the award given by the Ombudsman, then he should have to approach the higher authority by way of filing revision or review of that order, not to file a fresh complaint before the Consumer Forum, no doubt, the complainant has alleged that he only claim interest and compensation in this complaint, but interest has already been declined in the award dated 01.12.2014 by the Insurance Ombudsman and moreover, the compensation has not been claimed by the complainant before the Insurance Ombudsman. So, under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the matter in issue has been already adjudicated by the Insurance Ombudsman, therefore, the instant complaint of the complainant is not maintainable.
11. Apart from above, there is an other legal lacuna in the complaint of the complainant that the complainant himself alleged in Para No.7 of the complaint that the OPs have forged the signature of the complainant on a form of life insurance policy for personal gain thereby committed fraud and forgery with the complainant as well as his father, whenever, any plea in regard to fraud and forgery is taken by the complainant in the complaint, then obviously the jurisdiction of the Forum is ousted because the matter in regard to fraud and forgery is to be only adjudicated by taking full fledged evidence from both sides as well as cross-examination of that witnesses, which is not possible in the summary procedure as conducted by the Consumer Forum, so, from this angle, this complaint of the complainant is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum and remedy with the complainant is to go before the Civil Court, if he so desire.
12. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable before this Forum as already discussed above, therefore, the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
13. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
13.02.2018 Member President
