This complaint is made by one Sri Bishnu Pada Mallik and Sri Pintu Mallic against HDFC Standard Life Insurance Pvt. Ltd. and Future General Corp., praying for a direction upon the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,060/- and another sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- together with interest.

Facts, in brief, are that on 19-02-2014, one Mr. Amar Santra, representative of OP No. 1 visited the residence of the Complainants and following a thorough discussion, Complainant No. 1 agreed to invest some money in a one-time investment scheme.  It is stated that the proposal form was filled up by said Mr. Santra and in good faith, Complainant No. 1 put his signature on the dotted line.  Complainant No. 1, thereafter, issued a cheque for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and handed over the same to the said Executive of the OP No. 1 together with necessary documents like Voter ID card, PAN Card, photographs.  However, on receipt of a letter from the OP No. 1 addressed to the Complainant No. 2, whereby it acknowledged receipt of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the Complainant No. 2, he became totally shocked.  So, he immediately made contact with Sri Santra and apprised him of the entire incident, who assured him to make necessary correction.  Relying on the assurance of said Sri Santra, Complainant No. 1 again agreed make a further one time investment of Rs. 20,000/-  for obtaining income tax benefit for the year 2013-14.  It is stated that on 17-03-2014, Sri Amit Ghosh, an Assistant of Sri Santra called on the residence of the Complainant and in accordance with the discussion the Complainant No. 1 had with Sri Santra, said Sri Ghosh filled up the proposal form and the Complainant No. 1 wrote the name of his brother, Pintu Mallic in capital letters and put his signature as per his instruction and also paid a further sum of Rs. 20,000/- vide one cheque dated 18-03-2014. However, as ill luck would have it, this time also, the Complainant No. 1, to his utter surprise, received on 27-03-2014, the policy bond in the name of the Complainant No. 2 having a tenure of 10 years with yearly premium of Rs. 19,401/-.  Therefore, Complainant No. 1 again took up the matter with the above two executives, who again assured to rectify the anomaly and took away the original policy bond worth Rs. 20,000/- for the ostensible purpose of making due corrections.  Meanwhile, the Complainant also received the policy bond of Rs. 50,000/- on 07-04-2014 that stood in the name of his brother, i.e., Complainant No. 2 which was issued on 02-04-2014 for a term of 10 years with yearly premium of Rs. 48,502/-.  Perturbed over such developments, Complainant No. 1 asked two executives of the OP No. 1 for cancellation of both the policies.  Subsequently, Sri Santra collected the original policy bond of Rs. 50,000/- and assured the Complainant No. 1 that he would make necessary arrangements for refund of the entire money within the next fortnight.  However, as the Complainant No. 1 did not receive any money, he served a legal notice through his Ld. Advocate on 05-12-2014.  Later on, one Sri Anupam Roy, introducing himself as a representative of IRDA, visited the place of the Complainant and advised to make a separate fund in the name of the Complainant No. 2 to facilitate refund of Rs. 70,000/- already paid.  Accordingly, Complainant No. 2 paid a further sum of Rs. 50,000/-.  However, instead of creating new fund, another policy bond being policy no. 01234003 dated 17-11-2014 stood in the name of the Complainant No. 2 was received from the OP No. 3. It is stated that the Complainant No. 1 was caught by surprise to receive the said policy document as Complainant No. 2 merely paid Rs. 50,000/- but did not fill up or sign any proposal form. It is stated that in spite of receipt of request for cancellation of both the policies, followed by notices from the Complainant No. 1, the OP No. 1 sent a debit advice through ECS on 24-02-2015 without any authority or knowledge or consent of the Complainant No. 1 to the bank account of the Complainant No. 1 for realization of yearly premium of the first two policies stand in the name of Pintu Mullick, i.e., Complainant No. 2 and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- has been debited to the account of the Complainant No. 1 and another advice for Rs. 50,000/- has been returned due to insufficient balance for which Rs. 60/- has been charged.  The Complainant through his Ld. Advocate sent a notice dated 11-03-2015 to the OPs.  The OP No. 2 although acknowledged receipt of said notice vide its letter dated 17-03-2015, no positive endeavour has been made to settle the grievance of the Complainants.  Hence, this case.

OP Nos. 1&2 contested the case by filing WV, whereby they denied all the material allegations of the complaint.  It is stated by these OPs that upon receipt of a written application and considering the information given by the Complainant to be true and correct, these OPs made a welcome call to check whether the customer was agreeable regarding the policy and following his due consent, the OPs issued policies being nos. 16750266 and 16671927 in favour of the Complainant No. 2.  It is further stated that every policy document, as per Regulation 6(2) of the Policyholders’ Interest Regulations, 2002 contains an option to return the policy within 15 days of receiving the same if the policyholder is not satisfied with the said policy.  These OPs denied receiving any request for cancellation of concerned policies within the free look period.  The Complainant also paid renewal premium for the second time in respect of policy no. 16750266.  However, the other policy is in lapse status due to non-payment of premium after paying the first premium.  Thereafter, on 27-06-2014, the Complainant No. 1 wrote a letter alleging missale and non-receipt of the policy document.  The OPs duly replied to the same vide letter dated 02-07-2014, wherein they clarified that since the policies stood in the name of the Complainant No. 2, the policyholder needed to approach the company.  These OPs claimed that the Complainant is not entitled to refund of the premium amount as the OP Insurer covered the risk of the Complainant’s life so far.  Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the case.

            In its defense, it is stated by the OP No. 3 through a WV that the Company, upon receipt of a duly filled-up and signed proposal form bearing application no. T02195997 dated 12-11-2014 from Complainant No. 2 for a life insurance policy on his life, issued necessary policy in favour of the applicant.  The Complainant No. 2 signed the proposal form in English and also mentioned in the proposal form that he is a Graduate. It goes to show that he was in a position to read, understand and comprehend the contents of the proposal form.  Since no prudent person would simply sign on a form without reading, understanding and agreeing to its contents, hence, there can be no iota of doubt that Complainant No. 2 had read, understood and agreed with the contents of the proposal form and was fully aware from the very beginning about the details of the subject policy.  After receipt of proposal form, the Company made a verification call on mobile no. 96814-05067 on 14-11-2014 to the Complainant No. 2 and on such call Complainant No. 2 confirmed each of the policy features mentioned in the proposal form and given his confirmation for issuance of the said policy and relying upon the answers, statements and declarations provided by the Complainant No. 2 in the proposal form, the company issued the insurance policy in the name of the Complainant No. 2.  On 20-11-2014, the policy document was sent to the Complainant No. 2 on the same address as mentioned in the cause title of the present complaint case and the same was received by the Complainant No. 2 himself on 21-11-2014.  Hence, the free look period for the subject policy expired on 05-12-2014.  The Company received a free look cancellation request for the first time from the Complainant No. 2 on 14-04-2015 through the IRDA IGMS portal.  However, the company vide its letter dated 07-05-2015 declined the said cancellation request since it had been preferred beyond the free look period.  The Company vide renewal premium notice dated 04-11-2015 duly reminded the Complainant No. 2 to pay the renewal premium falling due on 14-11-2015.  On account of failure of the Complainant No. 2 to pay the said renewal premium, the Company vide its letter dated 15-12-2015 duly intimated Complainant No. 2 that the subject policy had lapsed.  In view of the aforesaid facts, this OP prayed for dismissal of the case.

            We are to consider, whether Complainants are entitled to the relief(s) sought for by them.

Decision with reasons

            We have heard the averments made by the Ld. Advocates of the parties and scrupulously perused the documents on record to arrive at a judicious decision. Let us first discus the pros and cons of the case on the basis of individual policies. 

1.POLICY NO. 16671927 DATED 01-04-2014 ISSUED BY OP NOS. 1&2

It appears from the proposal form that the purported signature of the policyholder is made in capital letters which seems quite unusual for any literate person to do.  More so, we do not find any parity in between the signature as it appears on the proposal form vis-à-vis PAN Card and 15G Form submitted by the Complainant No. 2 along with his affidavit-in-chief.  Further, there is a provision in the proposal form that in case the application is not filled up by the policyholder, signed declaration from a third party is necessary to the effect that contents of the application form has been explained to the policy-holder.  Most surprisingly, the relevant column has been left blank.  Lest the OP Nos. 1&2 claims that the proposal form is signed by the Complainant No. 2 himself, taking into consideration the mismatch in respect of the title of the life assured (it is mentioned in the proposal form as MALLIC but signed as MALLIK), it is unbelievable that one would make such gross mistake in writing one’s own title.  In fact, it is claimed by the Complainants that the proposal form was filled up by the agent of the OP Nos. 1&2. Also intriguing is the fact for a married person to name his brother as nominee instead of his spouse/children.  Similarly, it defies our common sense that Complainant No. 1 decided to finance the premium of such a substantial amount in the name of his brother.  Incidentally, such arrangement was made despite the fact that the Complainant No. 2 had his own bank account with State Bank of India.  It also appears that notwithstanding mentioning of details of witness, viz., signature, address and occupation is mandatory, such a vital column has been left totally blank. No explanation is forthcoming before us either as to why the Complainant No. 1, without any rhyme or reason, would put his signature in the space mandated for the signature of the proposed policyholder.  It is another matter that the said signature has been struck out. This has happened in respect of the other policy as well, i.e., Policy no. 16750266. Further, it appears that the Complainant No. 1 has put his signature on the photocopies of Voter ID Card and PAN Card of the  Complainant No. 2, the rationale of which indeed baffles us.  Normally holder of such documents authenticate the same by putting their signatures on it. Also noticeable is the fact that though there was no parity in respect of the signature as it appears on the PAN Card of the Complainant No. 2 vis-à-vis purported signature of the Complainant in capital letters on the photocopy of the PAN Card, authorized agent of the  OP Nos. 1&2 blindly verified and confirmed/authenticated the same as correct one.  Above all, there is a stipulation in the proposal form that the signature of the life assured should match with signature on ECS/SI mandate or bank records.  Against this backdrop, one wonders, despite disparity in the signature, how come the proposal form was endorsed by the concerned department of the OP Nos. 1&2. It further appears that the Customer Acknowledgement Copy (Auto debit mandate) form was also not handed over to the Complainants. There is a crystal clear instruction in the relevant portion of the application form under the heading “Most Important Document” that the signature as it appears on the said form should match the signature of bank record/identity proof submitted. Even a casual eye view is sufficient to realize that there is no similarity in the signature of the Complainant No. 2 as it appears on the photocopy of Form 15G or PAN Card vis-à-vis proposal form for the insurance policy on record. So many defects with the proposal form, to our mind, should have cautioned the concerned section of the OP Nos. 1&2 to smell rat and cancel the proposal form.       

2.POLICY NO. 16750266 DATED 25-03-2014 BY THE OP NOS. 1&2

Apart from afore-mentioned anomalies with this policy as well, we find it strange that although the proposal form was filled up and signed on 19-03-2014 and the date of cheque mentioned as 18-03-2014, most surprisingly, date of risk commencement is mentioned as 24-02-2014.  No explanation is provided from the side of the OP Nos. 1&2 regarding this anomaly. Further, in the proposal form Complainant No. 1 has been mentioned as the father of the Complainant No. 2 although the former happens to be the brother of the latter.                                                                         

3.POLICY NO. 01234003 DATED 17-11-2014 ISUED BY THE OP NO. 3

On a comparison of the signature as it appears on the proposal form vis-à-vis 15G From, there seems no dissimilarity although the Complainant No. 2 has disowned the purported signature appearing on the proposal form.  Also, it appears that unlike in respect of HDFC policies, premium in respect of this policy was paid through  cheque drawn on SBI.  Moreover, in the specified space, bank particulars of SBI,  Naktala branch is given, where the Complainant No. 2 is having a bank account.  No such proof is put forth from the side of the Complainant No. 1 to establish that premium in respect of this policy was made from his bank account.  

            Taking into considering so many irregularities in respect of the first two policies, as pointed out hereinabove, we do find enough substance in the allegations made from the side of the Complainants.  It is claimed by the OP Nos. 1&2 that they made contact with the policyholder over phone upon receipt of the proposal/application form from him to reconfirm the details mentioned in the proposal forms.  However, most surprisingly, they stopped short of furnishing any detail particulars of alleged phone calls or provide any material proof in support of their claim.  It is desirable that a claimant would always advance material/documentary proof in support of its claim. Sitting tight over material proof and raising technical questions instead only creates an element of suspicion.  It is indeed strange that although a complaint was lodged against the authorized agents of the OP Nos. 1&2 by the Complainants, they did not bother to initiate even an internal probe into the allegations despite knowing that the menace of mis-sale of insurance policies is quite rampant in the insurance sector.  No affidavit is filed from the side of the concerned agents either to refute the allegations of the Complainants.  Thus, in absence of any rebuttal from the side of the agents concerned and in the light of our aforesaid findings, we find no reasonable ground to entirely disbelieve the allegations of the Complainants and as we know, it is the settled position of law that principal is vicariously liable for the act/conduct of its authorized agent.  Therefore, we are of view that the OP Nos. 1&2 cannot avoid their liability for the wrongdoing of their agents.  Having said that, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that it was incumbent on the part of the Complainants as well to preach due caution and go through the intricate details of the proposal form before signing the same.  For ends of justice, therefore, we deem it fit and proper to direct the OP Nos. 1& 2 to refund the entire deposited money in respect of Policy nos. 16671927 and 16750266. 

            However, this is not the case in respect of Policy No. 01234003.  As observed hereinabove, the signature of the Complainant No. 2 is found to be completely in sync with the signature as it appears in the 15G form.  Further, the compelling situation that is stated by the Complainants in their petition of complaint behind issuing a cheque of Rs. 48,200/- through cheque and Rs. 1,800/- by cash sounds quite unconvincing.  As both the Complainants are matured and literate persons, we find no reason to believe that both of them lack bare minimum common sense to appreciate that IRDA never sends its officials to the residence of any policyholder to sort out a problem in between a private insurance company and a policy-holder.  It is stated by the Complainants that one Mr. Anupam Roy asked them to generate a separate fund of Rs. 50,000/- in the name of the Complainant No. 2 to get back the deposited money and going by such advice, they paid such a huge sum as corpus for generating new fund.  By no stretch of imagination, it appears believable to us that despite cutting such a sorry figure twice in the past, they did not learn any lesson.  Be that as it may, in absence of any supporting evidence to prove the purported signature on the proposal form to be a fake one, we see no reason whatsoever to doubt the bona fide of the contention of the OP No. 3. As such, we are of opinion that the Complainants are not entitled to get any refund in respect of this policy.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

          that CC/102/2016 be and the same is allowed on contest in part against the  OP No. 1&2 and dismissed on contest against the OP No. 3.  OP Nos. 1&2 are directed to return the entire deposited money in respect of Policy Nos. 16671927 and 16750266 to the Complainant No. 1, the de facto payee of premiums in respect of these policies, within two months of this order, i.e., the amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from this date till full and final payment is made.