DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  06^th  day of February,  2023

Present      :   Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :  Smt. Vidya A., Member                        

                  :  Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                Date of Filing: 04/04/2019    

                         CC/107/2019

1. Prasanna Varma,

S/o.Nayanthara,

Archana Colony, Engineering  College P.O.,

Akathethara, Palakkad,

Palakkad – 678 008    

2. Vinod K Kutty

V/394, Theradapuzha House,

Palakkad, Kerala – 678 701                                        -                       Complainants

(By Adv.M/s.Anoop Chembath & Vanitha G)

                                                                                    Vs

1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co.Ltd.

Rep.by The General Manager,

Regd.Office at Lodha Excelus,

13^th Floor, Apollo Mills Compound,

N.M.Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi,

Mumbai – 400 011

2. Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company,

Rep.by The General Manager,

Reliance Centre, 5^th Floor,

Off Western Express Highway,

Santacruz, East Mumbai – 400 055

3. The General Manager,

Insurance Regulatory & Development

Authority of India (IRDAI),

Consumer Affairs Department – Grievance

Redressal Cell, Sy.No.115/1,

Financial District, Nanakramguda, Gachibowli,

Hyderabad – 500 032                                            -                      Opposite parties

                   (O.P.1 by Adv. M/s Saji Issac and Ullas Sudhakaran

        O.P.2 by Adv. C. Sreekumar

        No vakalath filed for 3^rd O.P.)

O R D E R

By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1.         Facts pleaded in this complaint can be safely dissected into two segments as one as against the 1^st opposite party and the second, one as against the 2^nd opposite party, without affecting the case of the complainant in any manner. The 3^rd opposite party is a statutory authority.

2.(a)    Transactions with the 1^st opposite party:

Abridged pleadings are that the 1^st complainant is an employee of the 2^nd opposite party who is a businessman. She is the head of finance department of the business establishments of the 2^nd complainant. The 2^nd complainant had 2 policies issued by the 1^st opposite party which were in a “dead” stage. Staff of the 1^st opposite party made incessant calls to the 1^st complainant and directed her to revive the said lapsed policies. They also told her to avail a policy for herself so that the policies of the 2^nd complainant would be revived. They made her believe that once the “dead” policies are alive she would be able to close all the accounts and the entire amounts deposited by her would be refunded and the 1^st complainant would not have to suffer any monetary losses. Believing the assurances held out by the staff of the 1^st opposite party availed two policies from the 1^st opposite party.

                        But the amounts deposited by the complainants were not repaid as assured by the 1^st opposite party. 

(b)       Transactions with the 2^nd opposite party:

Transactions with the 2^nd opposite party also  relates to yet another “dead” policy of the 2^nd complainant. Herein the premium paid to the 2^nd opposite party to revive the “dead” policy of the 2^nd complainant was illegally converted into a fresh policy for the 1^st complainant. The 1^st complainant had no intention to avail the policy. The policy was availed through fraud.

(c)                                Upon verification, it was found that the policies alleged to be in the name of the 2^nd complainant were either non-existent or in the name of third parties.  The policies were issued by way of fraud. The complainant had no intention whatsoever to avail the policies. The opposite parties had failed to uphold their part of the agreement by cancelling the 1^st complainant’s policies and reviving the 2^nd complainant’s policies and closing them and handing over the proceeds arising there-from. Aggrieved thereby, this complaint is filed.

3.         Opposite parties entered appearance and filed versions.

Run of the mill versions of the opposite parties 1 and 2 have nothing to offer other than blanket denial of the complaint pleadings and high lighting of the circumstances that led to issuance of the policies to the complainant. They sought for dismissal of the complainant. 

Opposite Party 3, a Statutory Authority also filed version denying any role for them to play in the affairs which are the subject matter of this lis.

4.         Perusal of the pleadings and counter pleadings give rise to the following issues for consideration:

1.         Whether the complainant is bad for misjoinder of parties?

2.         Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party 1?

3.         Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party 2?

4.         Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for?

5.         Cost and compensation, if any?

5.         (i)         Evidence of complainant comprised of Proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A11. Exts. A9, A10 and A11 were objected.

Exts. A9(series) was objected to on the ground they were photostat copies unaccompanied by S. 65(B) certificate. Ext. A10 is objected to on the ground it is a photostat copy. Ext. A11 is objected to on the ground it is not accompanied by S. 65(B) certification. Since this Commission is not bound by the tenets of Indian Evidence Act and in the absence of a plea that the documents objected to are forged, concocted or fabricated, we are overruling the objections.

(ii)        Evidence on the part of 1^st opposite party comprised of proof affidavit and Exts. B1 to B6.  Witness for opposite party 1 was examined as DW1.

(iii)       Evidence on the part of 2^nd opposite party comprised of proof affidavit and Exts. B7 to B10.

            Ext. B8 was objected to on the ground that the terms and conditions were not informed to the complainant. Validity of this objection can be decided based on progress of facts and circumstances.

(iv)       3^rd opposite party did not adduce any evidence.

Issue No.1

6.         3^rd opposite party is Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India, a statutory authority that acts as a controller, supervisor and regulator of Insurance Companies in the country. O.P.3 discharges statutory duties and cannot be termed as a service provider as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act. Services rendered by the 3^rd opposite party are statutory in nature.

                                    Hence this Commission has no authority whatsoever to adjudicate on the action of the 3^rd  Opposite party. Therefore we hold that there is misjoinder of parties.

            Issue Nos. 2 & 3

 7.        Facts as applicable to transactions with opposite parties 1 & 2 are that the complainant is the head of  the financial department of the business establishment of the second complainant.  The second complainant had availed policies from these opposite parties which were presently “dead”. In order to revive the said dead policies of the 2^nd complainant, the first complainant availed insurance policies from the first & second opposite parties.  With regard to the policies issued by the first opposite party it transpired that the first opposite party did not revive or returned the amounts as promised by them. With regard to the premium paid for reviving the policy held in the second opposite party company, it metamorphosised into a new policy in the name of the complainant. In both the cases the complainant had no intention  of availing policies for herself. Her sole intention was revival of the dead policies in the name of the second complainant.

8.         Evidence in support of her pleadings were Exts.A1 to A11. These documents are documents issued by the opposite parties to the complainant while issuing policies. There are also some screenshots to prove that she had communications with the staff of opposite parties. 

In order to her contentions the authorized signatory of OP1 was cross examined. But nothing could be brought out by the cross examination of DW1.

Ext. B7 is the proposal form produced by opposite party 2. Ext. B7 shows the signature of the 1^st complainant. The complainant had no objection at the time of marking of the document that the signature in Ext. B7 is forged or concocted.  Sole objection to the documentary evidence of the 2^nd opposite party is that the terms and conditions in Ext. B8 policy were not informed to her. In the absence of a case regarding affixing of signature in Ext. B7, we cannot uphold the objection of the complainant in marking of Ext. B8.

9.         At the time of hearing, counsel for the complainant tried to focus the case based on an hitherto unstated argument regarding the period of cooling off period, the said argument is nothing short of an after-thought. The complainant had no complaints or pleadings regarding the cooling off periods till the date of argument. Further no evidence was adduced by the complainant that she suffered due to the fixation of cooling off period.

10.       Hence, we are constrained to hold that the complainant has failed to prove her allegations as against the opposite parties even after presenting voluminous and ornate pleadings.

11.       Thus we hold that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

            Issue No.4

12.       Resultantly we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.

13.       Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed.

            Issue No.5

14.       From a perusal of the pleadings it can be seen that the presence of the second complainant is of vital importance.  In the absence of the second complainant, the entire complaint would become nothing more than the attempts of the first complainant who availed policies from the opposite parties but is desirous of stopping payment of annual premium.  Claim of the 1^st complainant is that she heads the financial aspects of the business of the second complainant.  Had she been heading a financial department of a business establishment, she can be expected to show some business/financial acumen and caution while dealing with insurance policies of huge premium that is likely to cast a dent in the budget of a person. The first complainant cannot be equated as a layman.  She deals with the risky financial aspects of business. Hence, the pleading wherein the complainant tries to depict herself as an innocent victim of the opposite parties is not to be taken at its face value. 

15.       Taking resort to a Statutory Authority alleging false and fabricated cases against any entity is against law and is an abuse of the process of law. This Complaint is nothing but an attempt on the part of the complainant to get the premium amounts paid by her. But to that extent, she cannot manipulate the process of law.

18.       Hence we cast an exemplary cost on the complainant. The complainant is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1000/- to each of the opposite parties.

                  Pronounced in open court on this the 06^th day of February, 2023.         

                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                             Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

                                                             Sd/-

   Vidya.A

                       Member        

            Sd/-                                                                Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1   - Original policy  bearing no.20592068

Ext.A2  – Original policy bearing no.20747957        

Ext.A3  -  Original policy bearing No.53344631

Ext.A4  -  Copy of premium receipt bearing No.0010170582

Ext.A5 –  Copy of premium receipt bearing No.0010597321  

Ext.A6 – Copy of lawyers notice alongwith postal receipts issued by the complainants to OPs  

Ext.A7 –  Original reply dated 1/2/2019 to request for policy cancellation issued by OP2

Ext.A8 – Reply notice dated 31/1/2019 issued by OP3.

Ext.A9 series  – 3 Statement of accounts   

Ext.A10 series – Printout of screen shot   

Ext.A11 – Statement of account covering 1/5/2019 to 30/5/2019   

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:

Ext.B1 –  Copy of Ext.A1  

Ext.B2 -   Copy of proposal form dated 31/7/2018

Ext.B3  – Copy of Ext.A2

Ext.B4 –  Copy of  proposal form dated 18/9/18

Ext.B5  -  Copy of premium renewal reminder dated 20/7/19

Ext.B6 –   Copy of premium renewal notice dated 30/8/19

Ext.B7 – Copy of proposal form  dated 14/11/2018   

Ext.B8 – Copy of policy  bearing client ID No.68505593

Ext.B9 – Copy of printout of India Post Track Record.

Ext.B10 – Copy of Ext.A7

Court Exhibit:  Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  

DW1 – G.Vinay Prakash (Sr.Manager of OP1)

 Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.