Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central], 5th Floor ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No.-30/2015
1. Sh. Manohar Lal Vohra s/o Sh. I.D. Vohra
2. Sh. Vineet Vohra s/o Sh. Manohar Lal Vohra
Both R/o H. No. 525, Lane-23-A, Sainik Farm,
New Delhi-110062 …Complainants
Versus
OP1- ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055 (through its General Manager
OP2- Reliance Life Insurance Company Limted,
Regd. O. Block-H, Ist Floor, Dhiru Bhai Ambai Knowledge City,
Navi Mumbai, Maharasthra-400710, India
(through its General Manager)
OP3- Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
Building No.3, (3rd Floor), Unit No.1, Nesco I.T. Park,
Western Express Highway, Goregaon, (East),
Mumbai-400063 (through its General Manager)
OP4- HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
Branch office at HDFC SL Delhi, Mayur Vihar Branch,
(1st Floor), No. 1-A, Mayur Palace, Star City Mall,
Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Near Mayur Vihar Extn.,
Metro Station, New Delhi-110091.
OP5- Smt. Aarti w/o Sh. Sanjay Singh
Agent of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
Jhandewalan, N.Delhi-110055 (through its General Manager) ...Opposite Parties
Senior Citizen Case
Date of filing: 28.01.2015
Date of Order: 04.07.2023
Coram: Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Ms. Shahina, Member -Female
Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member
Inder Jeet Singh, President
ORDER
1.1. (Introduction to case of parties) – Complainant no. 1 had obtained a policy from OP1 in 2009 and sometime in 2014 before the maturity date in 2015, he receives a telephone call from OP1 that someone else is trying to withdraw the policy amount. Immediately he rushed to office of OP1. He was assured safety of his money but he was not satisfied with assurances, he requested for release of policy amount but he was asked, threatened and force to obtain new policy, otherwise the policy amount will be locked, money will not be released to him. Not only the complainant no. 1 but also his son/ complainant no. 2 was constrained, compelled and influenced to have policies. They were forced four more policies from OP2, OP3 and OP4.
1.2. The OP1, OP2, OP3 and OP4 by their separate reply opposed the complaint by explaining that parameter of Regulations and other norms were followed by them, there was no unfair trade practice or deficiency of services. The policies were taken by them out of their own volition. The complainants failed to exercise free-look option within 15 days of receipt of policies. There is valid contract to be complied with.
2.1. (Case of complainants) – The complainant no.1 is aged about 72 years suffering from old age ailments and OP2 is his son, they along-with their families are residing at the given address. OP5 is an agent of other OPs.
In the year 2009, OP5 along with her husband approached the complainant and persuaded for insurance policy. He was introduced to OP1 for policy of onetime premium of Rs. 3,00,000/-, which would be matured in 2015, thus complainant no.1 purchased a policy of Rs. 3,00,000/- from OP1 vide policy no. 13153349 with effect from 31.12.2009 and having maturity on 31.12.2015 [for convenience, it is referred as 'first policy'].
2.2. In April 2014, complainant no. 1 receives telephone calls of Mr. Thakare from the office of OP1 from contact nos. 8010606178 & 9911071936 that someone is trying to withdraw the money from his policy by forging signature and when complainant immediately rushed to the office of OP1 and met Mr. Thakare and enquired about the person purporting to make signature, then he was introduced to Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal of OP1, who assured that his policy amount is safe and no- body can withdraw his money. The complainant was not satisfied with the assurance given by Mr Rajiv Aggarwal of OP1. The complainant no.1 made request to release policy amount with all benefits, then Mr. Rajiv conditionally agreed that he will release policy amount only if complainant no. 1 buys new policy.
The complainant no. 1 was constrained and compelled, thus complainant bought a policy for Rs. 49,999.68p against receipt 6619331C issued by OP2 [briefly 'second policy'] and another policy of Rs. 30,000/- vide policy no. 140514122504 dated 30.05.2014 [briefly 'third policy'], which was issued by OP3. Both the policies were onetime premium payment policy.
Further, complainant no. 2’s son was also constrained and persuaded by Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal for more onetime payment policy within 5 days being a condition for release of amount of three policies of complainants and under compelling circumstances complainant no. 2 had to purchase two more policies of OP4 for Rs. 60,142/- vide policy no. 1688385 dated 21.06.2014 [briefly 'fourth policy'] and policy of Rs. 43,651/- vide policy no. 16839291 [briefly 'fifth policy']; OP1 had also charged processing fee of Rs. 5,600/-, 6,300/- and 16,000/- from the complainants.
2.3. Again, complainants received telephone call from Consumer Affair Department of OP from contact no.36588012 that one person namely Ghanshayam having account no. 600310110000412 is trying to withdraw money of Rs. 1,85,914/- from the account of complainant no. 1, but this time the complainant became alert and suspicious about the working style of OPs that they are habitually doing this tactics to sell the policies. Moreover, it was also discovered that the first policy issued was for a period of 6 years having annual premium of Rs. 3,00,000/- , whereas first policy was given/purchased against onetime payment of premium. The complainant no.1 is 72 years of age and he is not employed nor he was in position to pay further premium. The OP1's officers and OP5 & other OPs sold the policy of OP2, OP3 and OP4 by playing fraud in collusion of each other.
2.4. That is why the present complaint for release of amounts of all the policies apart from compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- for mental pain and agony as well as litigation charges of Rs. 50,000/-. The complaint is supported by record of letters/policies, written complaint to police [against OP5, Mr. Thakre and Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal] and complainants’ special power of attorney in favour of Mohd. Sajid, authorizing him to prosecute the present complaint on their behalf.
3.1 (Case of OP1)- It is detailed written statement, composite of reply on facts, reproduction of some of contents of policy terms and conditions as well as mentioning of case law and that is why the reply is voluminous. The reply does not show response to some of the paragraphs of complaint. In brief, the complaint is opposed stating that complainant no. 1 voluntarily took the policy after filling in the proposal form, then policy document was issued and served to the complainant no. 1. The complainant had free-look period, which may be exercised, to get the policy cancelled, if the terms and conditions were not agreed, however, that option was not exercised, therefore, there is no merit in complaint to allege deficiency of services. The OP1 follows the norms of IRDA and policy was also issued under those guidelines.
The policy no.13153349 [i.e. first policy] was issued on 31.12.2009. It is settled law that limitation period is to be computed from the last date of payment of premium and complaint is barred by time. As per clause 6 (2) & 4(1) of IRDA (Protection of Policyholders' Interests) Regulations 2002, there was period of 15 days from the date of receipt of policy for review of terms and conditions, in case terms of policy were not suitable to complainant no. 1, however, it was not done. The complaint is contrary to the policy conditions and it is abuse of process of law and in terms of policy the amount would be payable as per terms and conditions.
The OP1 has nothing to say about the other policies or policies pertaining to complainant no.2; otherwise no charges were taken from the complainants. OP5 is not agent of OP1.
3.2. The complainant filed replication and denied all the allegation of reply, by explaining that complainant no. 1 was forced to take new policy by creating undue influence, as a condition for getting released of the amount, otherwise it was threatened of consequences of policy amount will be blocked. It was onetime payment policy when first policy was taken but other policies were forced upon the complainants, no policy plan was informed to him.
4.1. (Case of OP2) - The OP2 also filed detailed reply, his reply is pertaining to complainant no.1 in respect of 'the second policy'. The reply does not show response to some of the paragraphs of complaint by stating it needs no reply. The OP2 has its registered office at East Mumbai and having its office at SF-3 Ist Floor, CBD Ground, near Karkardooma Court, Delhi-92.
The complaint is without cause of action and an insurance Executive/Advisor M/s Rdb Insurance Broking Services Pvt Ltd. has not been joined in the complaint. The complaint is an afterthought to harass the OP. The complainant no.1 had signed proposal form after knowing about the contents, nature of policy and other terms and conditions, the policy was obtained by him, which was also dispatched through speed post no.EQ547181128IN at the address of complainant no.1, it was delivered to him on 23.05.2014. After receipt of policy, the complainant had 15 days time seeking review of the terms and conditions of the policy, if it was not so agreed the policy may be returned with objections, however, that option was not exercised despite provisions under Regulation no,6(2). Therefore, the complaint is without merit, there is no deficiency of services and it is liable to be dismissed.
4.2. The complainant opposed the written statement by filing replication and they deny the allegations either of non-joinder of insurance Executive/ advisor or of other allegation, since the complaint was filed on factual position and without concealing any material fact. There was collusive acts of OPs, it was forced to buy new policy before releasing the amount of first policy as condition and money was extracted from him, besides causing mental agony and harassment.
5.1. (Case of OP3)- The OP3 also filed its detailed reply, this reply pertains to 'third policy' that this was complainant no.1/Manohar Lal Vohra, who submitted application dated 27.5.2014 for insurance policy for his son Sh. Vineet Vohra/complainant no.2. The complainant had signed proposal form after having full knowledge of T&C of the policy, he has been to the contents of proposal form, therefore, the policy no.140514122504 [i,e, third policy] was obtained by him, which was also delivered to him on 03.05.2014. After receipt of policy, the complainant had 15 days time seeking review of the terms and conditions of the policy, if it was not so agreed, however, that option was not exercised despite provided in the Regulations. The complainant cannot get the policy cancelled after the expiry of free look period of 15 days. In the fact, a declaration was made in the proposal form, it was after knowing all about policy and OP3 had also accepted the declaration believing it to be true and correct. The complaint is without cause of action, it is abuse of process of law and there is not a single allegations of deficiency of service or of unfair trade practice. There is also a question, whether OP is under obligation to entertain option of complainant to cancel the policy after lapse of 15 days free-look period and to refund the premium amount received? The para 16 of reply reproduces the definition of 'consumer' u/s 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with conclusion that complainant is not a consumer. Therefore, the complaint is without merit, and it is liable to be dismissed. [The reply mentions citation/names of some cases as arguments but without mentioning ratio of law, however, the pleading is to be confined to the fact, therefore, the case law is not to be reflected here].
5.2. The complainants opposed the written statement by filing replication and they deny the allegations since the complaint was filed on factual position and without concealing any material fact. The complainants reiterate as to how they were made scared and called by telephone calls, then they were compelled to take the policy by putting conditions, They are consumers. The complaint is correct.
6.1 (Case of OP4)- The OP4 filed its reply and opposed the complaint that OP5 is not an agent of OP4 nor Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal is connected with OP4 but complainant no.2 met OP4's consultants namely Ms Megha Sinha and Shri Devender Rawat, as mentioned in the proposal forms. OP2 had approached OP4 and opted both the policies voluntarily. A policy (i.e.5th policy) was delivered to him on 28.6.2014 and other policy (i.e.4th policy) was also delivered to him on 08.08.014. After receipt of policy, the complainant had 15 days time seeking cancellation of policy if the terms and conditions of the policy were not agreed upon, however, that option was not exercised despite provided in the policy. The complainant cannot get the policy cancelled after the expiry of free look period of 15 days. The complainant was also informed that insurance is a long term contract and it is mutually advisable that the policies are continued till the end of its term to derive total benefit. The complaint and relief claimed are not sustainable. However, the reply does not show response to some of the paragraphs of complaint.
6.2. The complainants filed replication and they reiterates as to how they were called by telephone, then they were threatened, forced and compelled to take the policies.
7. (Case of OP5)- There is no appearance and reply by OP5.
8.1. (Evidence)- Complainants led evidence by filing affidavit of their attorney Shri
8.2. OP1 filed affidavit of evidence of its constituted attorney Sh. Hetal Mehta, it is a detailed affidavit on the pattern of reply.
8.3. There is no evidence by led by OP2 and OP5
8.4 OP3 filed affidavit of evidence of its authorized representative Sh. Jitin Parekh, it is a detailed affidavit, it reflects a contents of reply.
8.5 OP4 filed affidavit of evidence of its authorized representative and Associate Manager Legal Sh. Akash Singh. The affidavit is replica of reply.
9.1 (Final hearing)- Sh. Mohd. Mobin, Advocate for complainants made the submissions on behalf of complainants.
9.2. Sh. Rahul Lal Akhirya, Advocate for OP1 and OP2 made the submissions on their behalf.
9.3. There was no submissions on behalf of OP3. As already stated OP5 has been absent from inception.
9.4. Sh. Satyarth Sinha, Advocate made the submissions for OP4.
9.5 The parties made their submissions on the basis of their pleading and document, in fact it was reiteration of their respective cases; the same has already been introduced.
10.1 (Findings)- The contentions of all the sides are considered, keeping in view the material on record. There are factual dispute as well as some other allied issues raised, firstly allied issue are taken one by one. When factual dispute will be discussed, it would also be determined 'whether any of the OPs is under obligation to entertain the request/ option of complainant (withdrawal/ cancellation of policy) after 15 days free lock period?
10.2.1. According to OP1, the complaint is barred by time since time for computing the limitation period from the date of payment of last premium, which was in 2009 and complaint was filed in 2015. Whereas, complainants oppose it that complaint is within time, since there was fraud played upon the complainants by adopting fearing methods to call and then threatening and force to the complainants to buy new policies, for getting released amount of first policy.
Let the record be pursued. The complaint was filed on 28.01.2015. The complainant took first policy on 31.12.2009, which matures on 31.12.2015. It was April 2014, when complainant no.1 receives call from Office of OP1 that some-one is trying to withdraw money from his policy. Immediately, he approached office of OP1, where OP1's Shri Rajiv Aggarwal, assures of safety of policy money as well as no one else can withdraw money from his policy. Then complainant no.1, feeling not satisfied with assurances given and culprits were not disclosed , had requested for release of his policy amount but Mr. Rahiv Aggarwal of OP1 insisted for new policy in order to secure release amount of first policy. Thus, the cause of action had arisen in April 2014, when OP1's Officer had called complainant no.1, on the projection of withdrawing money by someone from account of complainant no.1. The period of two years will be computed from April 2014, when cause of action had arisen and compliant is within two years.
Moreover, on 02.02.2016, the OP1 had paid an amount of Rs.4,10,585/- to the complainant no.1 being foreclosed amount of policy. It also supersedes plea of OP1 on point of limitation. The complaint is within prescribed period of limitation. [OP1 has relied upon TATA AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harvinder Singh & Ors. FA No. 300/2014 dod by SCDRC, Chandigarh, that computation of limitation period will be from last paid premium. OP1 also refers VK Appliances V NIA Co. Ltd. IV (2013) CJP 419 (NC) that letters, notices etc do not extend the time of limitation. However, issue of present case is distinguishable, since the cause has arisen in April, 2014 then complainant was informed withdrawing of his money by someone from his account of Insurance Policy and further development took place].
10.2.2. The OP2 also raises objection against complainants that complain suffers from non-joinder of OP2's Insurance Executive/Advisor M/s Rdb Insurance Broking Services Ltd. being necessary and proper party in respect of second policy issued to complainant no.1. Whereas, complainant has reservations that it would not de-merit the case of complainants in the absence of insurance executive.
In fact, the objections raised by OP2 inherent answer to the objection, that when principle is impleaded there is no necessity of joining an agent. Moreover, no relief is claimed in complaint against an agent. Thus, complaint does not suffer from non-joinder of Insurance Executive. It is decided against OP2. Had the said agent to be a necessary party that complaint cannot be determined in its absence, the OP2 could have also requested to join it at its request? There was no such request on behalf of OP2. Otherwise, complaint can be determined in the absence of said agent.
10.3 OP1 has also reservation that complainants are not consumer, which is opposed by complainants. Insurance policy is contract of insurance. The OP2 to OP4 are Insurer and complainants are insured. The services of personal insurance cover are covered under the definition of services defined u/s 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus complainant are consumers.
11.1 After analyzing totality of circumstances, the following conclusion are drawn from evidence of complainants and OP1:-
(i) the complainant no.1 took first policy with effect from 31.12.2009 and its maturity/vesting date was of 31.12.2015,
(ii) the complainants have filed and proved documentary record of policy certificate issued to complainant no.1 with letter dated 31.12.2009, showing policy period of 6 years, due date of last premium of 2011, yearly premium of Rs.3,00,000/- and period of premium is yearly basis,
(iii) there was no complaint of complainant no.1 against any one after receipt of letter with policy till April, 2014, when reported to office of OP1,
(iv) there was valid contract between the complainant no.1 and OP1 in respect of First policy and complainant had not opted for free-look period.
(v) the OP1 has also proved policy as well as foreclose account of complainant no.1. The complainant had just deposited Ist premium of Rs.3,00,000/- and no other premium, that is why the fore-closed amount of Rs.4,10,585/- was calculated as per norms of policy and it was released to complainant no.1, which was recorded in the proceedings dated 02.02.2016.
(vi) the conclusions drawn in sub-paragraph (i) to (v) above to that extend do not establish the complaint against OP1 and OP5.
11.2 After analyzing totality of circumstances, the following conclusion are drawn from evidence of complainants and of OP 2 to OP4, which establish the facts that complainants no.1 and no.2 were constraint to take policy of OP2, OP3 and OP4, which cannot be construed valid policy contracts:-
(a) Office of OP1/ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. is located at Jhandewalan, New Delhi but office of OP2 & OP3 are in Mumbai; OP2 has also office in Karkardooma, Delhi and OP4 has office in Mayur Vihar, Delhi. The Office address of OP5 is also of OP1.
(b) Paragraphs 7, 9 and 11 of complaint are statement of allegations against OPs in respect of issue of policies under coercion and undue influence and paragraphs 8 & 10 of the complaint give detail of 04 policies issued. Para no.7 is specific as to how the complainant no.1 was called under the pretext that someone is trying to withdraw money from his policy, then complainant no.1 had visited office of OP1, where Mr. Thakre & Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal were available and under unsatisfied situation, complainant no.1 had requested for release of his first policy amount.
(c-i) OP1 had not specifically denied allegations of para 7 of complaint and other para 8 does not need any reply as well as general denial to other paragraphs. There is no version of OP1 to these allegations nor its defence.
OP2's reply to para 7 is that it needs no reply, as if it pertains to OP1 only. Similarly other paragraphs are responded that it needs no reply, since OP2 is associated with 'second policy'. However, there is no evidence led by OP2 on any count.
OP3's reply to para 7, is it does not know for want of knowledge, as if it does not pertain to OP3. Similarly other paragraphs are not denied specifically but OP3 has submitted own case since it had issued policy (i.e. 'third policy').
OP4 does not reply paras 7 & 11 that they do not pertain to it. The complainant no.2 voluntarily approached OP4 for policies (i.e. fourth policy and fifth policy).
(c-ii) The OPs had also led evidence on these lines. By taking the facts as it is, reveals the circumstances, which are leaning towards the facts mentioned by the complainant.
The facts alleged in complaint and then in evidence is that the complainant no.1 was called by telephone, then complainant no.1 went to office of OP1, where Mr. Thakre introduced to Mr. Rajv Aggarwal. The complainants had gone to the office of OP1 and other policies were managed from the office place of OP1 only. It is never the case of OP2 (for second policy), OP3 (for third policy) and OP4 ( for fourth policy and fifth policy) that the complainants had came to their office at Mumbai or at Karkardooma, Delhi or Mayur Vihar, Delhi for policies. The circumstances are speaking themselves that Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal of OP1 had provided plate-form or accommodation from his office to other OPs for getting issuing policy to complainants.
(d) The other allegations are the complainant no.1 had received telephone call in April 2014 and then other developments took place. This contemporary situation is also emerging from the record itself.
Complainant no.1 is aged about 71/72 years in 2014. The common feature is that proposal form for the second policy, third policy, fourth policy and fifth policy are of May 2014 itself. The same are immediately subsequent to call to complainant no.1 as well as time allowed to complainant no.2 to obtain policies, otherwise amount of three policies would not be released.
The proposal form for second policy is of 16.05.2014 (for complainant no.1); proposal form for third policy is of 27.05.2014 with cheque of 24.05.2014 (for complainant no.1 but for policy for complainant no.2); proposal form for third policy is of 05.05.2014 and proposal form for fifth policy is of 12.05.2014 (both for complainant no.2). It is all happening after telephone call of April 2014, suspicious in the mind of complainant no.1 to withdraw first policy amount and request for release of amount. The second policy issued to him was for 20 years' maturity, whereas OP1 was aged about 72 years in April 2014. Will one opt such policy for 20 years in the age of 72 years?
It also confirms plea of complainants that Mr Rajiv Aggarwal of OP1 had constraint complaints by undue influence and pressure that first policy amount will be released after complying condition precedent of obtaining new policy. Then other were managed from office/place of Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal OP1 and 04 more policies were got issued.
(e) since the insurance policy contract is also contract, therefore, it has also to satisfy the requirement of contract to be entered with free consent of the parties, but the second policy, third policy, fourth policy and fifth policy issued lacks essential requirement of element of free consent of parties, consequently they are not valid policy contracts.
(f) the complaint was filed on 28.01.2015 after issue of fourth policy on 04.08.2014 by OP4 and fifth policy on 21.06.2014.
(g) the OPs took stand that complainants cannot cancel the policy or seek review of terms and conditions of policy after 15 days of free look period, however, it will happen only when there is valid contract, whereas in the present case it is not so. Therefore, clause of 15 days free look period will not be applicable for the second policy, third policy, fourth policy and fifth policy.
[The complainant refers Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Delhi (2000) SCC 66 deficiency of services cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy, quality, nature and manner of performance. Reliance is also placed on Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Madhavacharya (Revision petition no. 211 of 2009) that terms and conditions of insurance contract, inclusive of exclusion clause are to be strictly constitute to determine the extent of liability of insurer and similar other law has also been referred as held in General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs. Chandmul Jain (1966) 3 SCR 500, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Samayanallur Primary Agricultural Co-op. Bank AIR 2000 SC 10, Polymat India P. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 286. Whereas, the same were opposed by the complainants that they were victimized by the OPs and the case law as stated is not applicable to the present case.
[It is apparent on the face of record, the feature of present case are distinguishable from the case law presented on behalf of OP1.]
(h) Moreover, in Manmohan Nanda Vs United- India Assurance Co. [Civil Appeal no. 8386/2013) decided on 6.12.2021 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also dealt the regulations 'the IRDA (Protection of Policyholder' Interests) Regulations 2002' and it was held (in paragraph 34 thereof) "that just as insured has a duty to disclose all material facts, the insurer must also inform the insured about the terms and conditions of policy that is going to be issued to him and must strictly confirm to the statement in the proposal form or prospectus or those made through its agents. Thus, principle of utmost good faith imposes meaningful reciprocal duties owned by the insured to the insurer and vice-versa".
Whereas, the stand of OPs in the present case does not confirm it. The complainants were advised that the second policy, third policy, fourth policy and fifth policy are one-time paid premium policy but situation is entirely different in each policy as it involved regular payment of premium.
(i) The 15 days of free look period is another opportunity to insured to view it and to consider for bona-fide review of terms and conditions but this situation will be after valid contract of insurance. It has not happened in this case for want of valid insurance contract.
(j) the complainants could not prove as to how those charges were taken from them whether by way of cash or cheque or other-wise, or when, to extent complaint could not be proved by them.
11.3 In view of detailed analysis, discussion and conclusions that there is unfair trade practice by OPs. OP1's officers have created an artificial projection of loss of money to be withdrawn, which also panic the complainant no.1 and to make him to bow to the conditions put by OPs. It is also deficiency of services that in order to receive amount of own policy, the complainants were put to condition to take new policies. It is apparent that complainants had suffered not only to part with their money that for too long period by paying first premium in respect of the second policy, the third policy, the fourth policy and the fifth policy but also trauma of inconvenience, harassment, uncertainty of release of amount of the first policy and mental agony from OP1 to OP4. Therefore, complainants are entitled for return of their premiums paid. They were constraint to file the complaint, they are also held entitled for litigation cost also. Since there is no specific evidence of income, source of income of OP2 and OP1 is un-employed being senior citizen, the amount of compensation and costs required to be quantified.
11.4. The complainants have claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- against OPs, since the second policy, the third policy, the fourth policy and fifty policy would not have been issued had there not been involvement of Mr. Thakre and Mr Rajiv Aggarwal of OP1. The complainant no.1, being first policy holder, was used as tool to exploit and explore issue of new policies. Thus, OP1 is held liable to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- to complainant no.1 and no.2.
Since, other OP2 to OP4 took aid of the officers of OP1 as well as plate-form of OP1, therefore, OP2 to OP4 are to compensate the complaints. OP2 will compensation of Rs.20,000/- to complainant no.1 and no.2. OP3 will compensation of Rs.20,000/- to complainant no.2. OP4 will compensation of Rs.40,000/- to complainant no.2.
12.1 The OP2 is held liable to return/pay to complainant no. 1 amount of Rs. 50,000/- (being round of 49,999.68p) which was received against receipt/policy 6619331C [ 'second policy'].
12.2 The OP3 is held liable to return/pay to complainant no. 2 amount of Rs. 30,000/- which was received against policy no. 140514122504 dated 30.05.2014 [third policy].
12.3 The OP4 is held liable to return/pay to complainant no. 2 amount of for Rs. 60,142/- which was received against policy no. 1688385 dated 21.06.2014 ['fourth policy'].
12.4 The OP4 is held liable to return/pay to complainant no. 2 amount of Rs. 43,651/- which was received against policy no. 16839291 ['fifth policy'].
12.5. OP1 to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- to complainant no.1 and no.2. OP2 will compensation of Rs.20,000/- to complainant no.1 and no.2. OP3 will compensation of Rs.20,000/- to complainant no.2. OP4 will compensation of Rs.40,000/- to complainant no.2.
12.6. The cost of Rs.20,000/- is allowed in favour of complainant and against OP1 to OP4, each of them will be liable to pay Rs.5,000/-.
13. No other order against OP1 (on policy amount) since complainant no.1's first policy has been fore-closed and an amount of Rs.4,10,585/-has been paid as concluded in paragraph 11.1 above. No order against OP5.
14. Announced on this 4th July, 2023 [आषाढ़ 13, साका 1945]. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for necessary compliance.
[Vyas Muni Rai] [ Shahina] [Inder Jeet Singh]
Member Member (Female) President
