Order-12.

Date-14/03/2016.

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

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that in the month of July, 2014 being approached and represented by one Miss Puja Das of AB Insurance, Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (OP3) who represented herself as of the licensed and authorized person of the OPs 1 and 2 and being assured by the OP3 that complainant shall get a lucrative insurance package and convinced the complainant and complainant was impressed with such representative and brand name of HDFC Life Insurance and complainant came to learn that it is a very simple policy which shall give huge return etc. and thereafter, OP3 procured her signature in some blank papers and in one blank cheque and after that in due course complainant received a policy document bearing no.16997710 - HDFC Life Insurance but after considering the said policy document complainant found that policy commenced on and from 28-07-2014, sum assured is Rs.2,00,430/-, premium is Rs.48,500/- for a period of 15 years.  But the terms and condition as contained in the kit was never explained to the complainant by OP3 but after reading the same complainant found that she did not get the said policy with conditions what OP3 stated to her at the time of taking signature and cheque.  However, it is found that this form was filled up by one Shovan Majumder of AB Insurance Pvt. Ltd. with whom complainant has no contact and being dissatisfied with the same complainant lodged complaint to OP3 expressed her desire to get back the amount expressed that there was no such policy for mediclaim and in fact, OP3 represented before her that the policy is a mediclaim policy with life insurance and thereafter, OP3 assured that within next 60 days she shall have to get the mediclaim policy also.  But nothing was found matured after lapse of 60 days when complainant submitted prayer to the OP insurance company for cancellation and for refund but no fruitful result was received by the complainant and ultimately refused to settle the matter.  Thereafter, complainant submits a complaint before Ombudsman on 26-02-2015 but Ombudsman also did not decide the same. 

So, in the above circumstances, complainant has appeared before this Forum for redressal for negligence and deficient manner of service and also for selling such a product by mis-representation and it is nothing but a mis-sale and in the above circumstances, complainant prayed for redressal.

Notices were duly served upon HDFC Life Insurance OP1 and others and OPs 1 and 2 the insurance company by filing written statement submitted that a proposal form was issued to the complainant by HDFC SL Sanchay policy and after confirming the terms and condition of the policy complainant issued a cheque and against that policy was issued but even after receipt of policy document within 15 days no such prayer for cancellation of the policy by the complainant was submitted for which as per terms and condition of the policy it could not be entertained.  It is further submitted that complainant’s grievance was replied by the OPs 1 and 2 on 04-11-2014 stating that complainant with full knowledge submitted her proposal and in all cases reply was given for not considering the same and further conduct of parties proved that complainant will not only purchased it so, question of cancellation does not arise and further it is not submitted within freelook period.  So, the present complaint should be dismissed.

But anyhow OP3 has not appeared or filed any written version for which the case is heard finally.

Decision with Reasons

On proper consideration of the entire materials on record it is found that in the application form signature of Sonam Singh is there and another signature of Vinay Singh is there but Vinay Singh’s signature is found being pen through by putting N.A. but all other portions were made by Shovan Majumder with whom complainant has no contact or complainant never asked Shovan Majumder for submitting such application.  Further it is found that OPs 1 and 2 received everything from OP3 the broker of the OPs1 and 2 and the allegation is against OP3 but it is admitted by the OPs1 and 2 that they are soliciting their business on behalf of the company but about allegation of mis-sale, mis-representation made by OPs has not been denied then it is clear that OPs 1 and 2 cannot deny the false representation made by OP3 and their employees and also their mis-sale of the product to a student having his no income though it is noted tuition and it is made only by the OP3.  Further it is found that the complainant’s age as on 25-07-2014 was 21 years only.  But it is found that his qualification is only Madhyamik then how the OPs 1 and 2 were satisfied that she had her capacity to earn Rs.50,000/- per year by teaching student.  Another factor is that the cheque was not issued by Sonam Singh but the documents as produced show that the complainant Sonam Singh has income but it is found that Sonam Singh is a student of Class XI and her income is shown Rs.50,000/- per year.  It is absurd and all those acts were done by the OP3 back behind the knowledge of the complainant and another factor is that in that application form, the father of the complainant not signed but his signature was pen through by putting N.A.  Then wherefrom OPs 1 and 2 were satisfied about the income of the complainant Sonam Singh who is mere a student of class XI, and no such document was produced by the OP3 to substantiate the income of a student of Class XI.  Another factor is that as per IRDA guideline it is must to produce consent letter of the father or the mother about payment of the premium but that has not filed along with the application by the OPs that means everything was done by the broker OP3.  They processed everything and OPs1 and 2 issued policy but there is no contract in between complainant and OPs 1 and 2 and that is the business tactics of the OP HDFC.  No doubt HDFC is running a business in such a fashion but not a single case the HDFC Life Insurance before issuing a policy never contacted with customer or the complainant and, in fact, in between the customer and the seller, the OPs 1 and 2 never made the conversation about the product but their whole business is being run by the cheater agent, broker like OP3 who only takes plea that he is their solicitor that means if solicitor is removed from the picture the company then company shall be closed.  Most interesting factor is that broker company is made party but he has not appeared to contest or to deny the allegation but OPs 1 and 2 by filing their written statement have tried to convince that for mis-selling OP3 is liable but not OPs 1 and 2.  No doubt they have admitted that OP3 is the solicitor of the company for selling of item and if they are agents and they are deceiving the customers in the field then invariably for their act OPs 1 and 2 are also liable.  This Forum has pointed out in so many cases about the deceitful manner of trade adopted by the HDFC Life Insurance again and again and ventilated their manner of trade in insurance field or banking field.  No doubt they are deceiving customers through their cheat agents, brokers like OP3 and in the present case entire Form was written by the OP3’s employee whose name is Shovan Majumder but there was no contact between Shovan Majumder and complainant.  So, further fact is that complainant on receipt of such policy document forthwith reported to the OPs in writing but OPs stated that mediclaim policy shall be issued but everything is found false, fabricated.  So, it is proved that complainant is deceived by the OP3 no doubt and that act has been done by the OP3 at the instance of the OPs1 and 2 for which it can safely be said that directly or indirectly OPs 1 and 2 mis-sold the item to the complainant and no doubt complainant reported the matter to his solicitor OP3 for cancellation but he did not place the same but that solicitor OP3 collected cheque, collected signature when OPs 1 and 2 received it, processed it, issued policy without ascertaining the complainant’s tacit consent but considering the complainant’s actual status as a student having no income when the customer has no financial capacity to pay Rs.50,000/- per year as a student then how the policy was accepted that means entire HDFC Life Insurance authority is sitting in the cold chamber releasing in the market the dishonest solicitor like OP3, dishonest, cheater field advisor for collecting money anyhow and that is their capital.  Such a dishonest insurance company should be penalized.  In fact, all over West Bengal HDFC Life Insurance DHFL, PANAMERICA AND other Pvt. Insurance companies are loitering in the insurance field to somehow collect one premium through the customer knowing fully well that for next time there is no question for further premium from such person because it is a mis-sale by their solicitor like OP3 from the complainant who is no doubt a poor student.  So, somehow or otherwise being allured by OP3 her signature was collected and cheque was collected through some other sources and it was found that no consent letter was processed by the OP that means there is no contract in between the complainant and the OPs 1 and 2 at any point of time.

          Another factor is that OPs 1 and 2 never saw the complainant, never saw the complainant to sign in the application, never saw to fill up the application, never saw the status of the application or about her income but they are in the cold chamber for collecting money through their dishonest and cheat agent and solicitor like OP3 and their only act is to deprive the customer in such a manner and in the present case it is proved a student of Class XI – XII is deceived by the OPs and mis-sale was made by the OP3 on behalf of the OPs 1 and 2 for which OPs 1 and 2 are silent about OP3’s act because they have their close contact with OPs 1 and 2 and OP3 and they are giving huge commission for mis-selling such sort of product that means there is a connivance in between OPs 1 and 2 and 3 regarding mis-selling for which OPs 1 and 2 are silent about mis-selling the product by the OP3. 

          In view of the above facts that entire contact regarding policy is void ab initio and in the above circumstances, we are convinced to hold that complainant has been able to prove beyond any manner of doubt the mis-sale of the product by mis-representation about the product and at the same time complainant has proved that all the OPs are jointly running such deceitful manner of trade and by their act no doubt complainant has been harassed and at the same time complainant never get any chance to realize for what purpose the said amount shall be deposited but complainant was satisfied that the mediclaim shall be opened for 15 years by depositing one premium but that is not the fact.  So, misrepresentation, mis-sale made by the OPs are well proved for which the entire policy is found void and for which the complainant is entitled to get refund of the said amount after deducting 5 percent from the said amount as service charge as per IRDA Guideline along with litigation cost and compensation.

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs 1 and 2 with a cost of Rs.5,000/- and same is allowed against OP3 with a cost of Rs.2,000/- in ex parte form.

          OPs 1 and 2 are hereby directed to refund the entire amount of Rs.50,000/- after deducting 5 percent as service charge and further for mis-selling and adopting unfair trade practice and deceitful manner of trade they shall have to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation.

          OP3 also shall have to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as penal damages to this Forum for adopting unfair practice as broker of OPs 1 and 2 and that amount shall be deposited to this Forum and it is imposed to check such sort of activities of so called dishonest brokers of OPs 1 and 2.

          OPs are directed to comply the order within one month from the date of this order failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order a penal interest @Rs.200/- per day shall be assessed till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected it shall be deposited to this Forum.

Even if it is found that OP is reluctant to comply the order in that case penal action u/s.25 read with Section 27 of the C.P. Act shall be started against them for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed.