Order-24.

Date-22/02/2016.

In this complaint Complainant Dr. Rajkumar Roy Choudhury by filing this complaint has submitted thatcomplainant is a senior citizen of India and he is a former professor of Indian Statistical Institute, a CSIR Emeritus Scientist and presently the JMD visiting Professor in Bethune College, Kolkata and other colleges and a reputed International Journals, Research Scholars.

In fact complainant was busy with his educational research and other teaching aid and as per request of the different agents of different insurance companies, complainant committed to purchase insurance policies.

Complainant purchased one ICICI policy bearing no. 14952831 from one PayelMondal and that was effective from 14.01.2011 and annual premium of Rs. 1,00,000/-.But complainant paid only one premium on the aforesaid policy and policy was lapsed and sometimes he purchased another policy known as HDFC Standard Policy being Policy No. 141539 and he paid only one premium on the aforesaid policy but the aforesaid policy was also lapsed.

Sometimes in the year 2013 one R. Chowdhury from ICICI called up the complainant and represented that he could get the premium paid on the lapsed ICICI Policy refunded together with a bonus of about of Rs. 1,50,000/- provided he purchased another ICICI policy with an annual premium of Rs. 24,200/-.Complainant was not aware of the residential address of R. Chowdhury but his phone number and the phone number of the other persons are appended in the schedule of the complaint.

Based on such representation and fully relying on the same complainant purchased another ICICI policy being No. 17773429 with an annual premium of Rs. 18,000/- but no money as promised was refunded to complainant and Mr. Chowdhury held out that he tied to deposit the money but the same could not be done due to some technical problem and complainant thereafter tried to get in touch with R. Chowdhury a number of times but, his mobile remained switched off.

Sometimes in the month of December, 2013 complainant received a phone call from one Manas Gupta of India Infoline Insurance Brokers’ Ltd. op no.2, he requested the complainant to get in touch with one Sumit Mukherjee of IIFL to sort out the problems regarding the refund of premium and the bonus as promised.Further one Tapan Mandal of IIFL also visited complainant for the same purpose and advised complainant to meet Sumit Mukherjee and complainant met the aforesaid person of IIFL at their premises at Shakespeare Sarani and Sumit Mukherjee represented that the entire premium paid by complainant would be returned of two Reliance Life Insurance Policies.Sumit Mukherjee also made certain calculations on a piece of paper indicating how the amount would be returned and one of the pages was handed over to complainant.

Based on such representation and fully relying on the same, complainant purchased two Reliance Life Insurance Policies on 17.02.2013 and premium amounts were Rs. 24,995.20 paisa and Rs. 25,999/- which were payable annually on the aforesaid policies.After the purchase of the aforesaid policies Sumit Mukherjee insisted the complainant to purchase another policy by HDFC to enable him to get about Rs. 3,44,623.62 paisa and complainant wanted to return the two Reliance Policies as detained above and S. Mukherjee agreed to do so but advised complainant to buy another Reliance policy with an annual premium of Rs. 49,999/- to avoid the payment of Rs. 56,000/- by way of ECS transfer charge.

Based on such representation and fully relying on the same complainant purchased one Reliance Life Insurance Policy with an annual premium of Rs. 49,999/- and he returned it for surrender within the stipulated period of 15 days and the endorsement on the back page showed that it was refused on 07.09.2014 and thereby signifying the negligent and deficient manner of service.

Practically complainant is an old and is also a patient of hypertension and other attendant ailments and he was getting anxious because no money as promised was refunded to him and he began calling up the aforesaid S. Mukherjee over phone and enquiring about the return of the money as promised and on those occasions S. Mukherjee confirmed that two consignments being C034622 and C2252995 of Zodiac Courier as per his own note in the blank sheet containing bank drafts have already been dispatched and will be delivered to complainant by 29.03.2014 and no such consignments ever reached to complainant on 29.03.2014 or any time till now.

No doubt complainant is a consumer within the meaning of definition of C.P. Act, 1986 as he has purchased the policies for a consideration from ICICI, IIFL and HDFC on representation that upon the purchase of the same a premium of Rs. 3,44,623.23 paisa would be returned to complainant.But after 29.03.2014 complainant stopped calling to S. Mukherjee he began receiving calls from the agents of those Insurance Companies insisting him for the premiums and in spite of complainant intimated the agents that they went on humiliating and taunted him over the phone.

All the aforesaid insurances were taken out in the name of his son and when the signatures were taken on blank insurance forms it was the insistence of S. Mukherjee that complainant signed in the name of his son and complainant was puzzled that it would be proper to send those forms to his son who at that point of time was stationed in Bangalore.But it was again the specific representation of S. Mukherjee that any delay in taking out the policy would cost complainant since the scheme under which the premium would be returned and would be closed any time and complainant would miss the chance of a life-time.It is the repeated insistence of S. Mukherjee that complainant signed the name of his son at the place indicated for signature and any handwriting expert would testify that the signature did not and does not belong to complainant’s son.

In fact complainant failed to understand of the law of Insurance Policy and that were returned within the stipulated period of fifteen days and it was refused to be acknowledged.Further ops promised certain services and in that they promised to return the premium amount but failed to deliver and in effect the service has turned out to be a spurious service and it was promised with no intention of fulfilling or possibly the entire service that was promised and for negligent and deficient manner of service and also for selling such type of item by misrepresentation and in a fraudulent manner, complainant has filed this complaint praying for redressal.

In the above circumstances, complainant prayed for directing the op no.1 to cancel the insurance policy being No. 17383786 and 17773429 and also to direct Reliance to cancel policy No. 51374150 and 51374121 and also to cancel the insurance policy being Client Id No. 87053131 and another policy of HDFC being Nos. 16638672 and 16003123 and to refund her amount and prayed for redressal.

On the other hand op no.1 by filing written statement submitted that the complaint is vexatious and complainant is a very learned man knowing fully well the contain purchased the policy and agent is a facilitator and he acted independently to help the consumer to procureInsurance policies and he helps to LICI to promote business and gets commission buthis agency does not in any way bind LIC if he misquotes rates of premium in respect of few policiesand other conditions it is the liability of the agent.

Further it is submitted that op no.1 duly dispatched the policy documents to the complainant and the same were admittedly received by him and he did not approach the answering ops during the free look period and thus he was agreeable to the terms and conditions of the policy.So, there was no deficiency and negligent on the part of the ops.

On receipt of written proposal form together with premium amount, a policy bearing No. 14952831 was issued in favour of the complainant and his son and the subject policy was for a term of 10 years with annual premium of Rs.1,00,000/- payable for 5 years and the original policy documents were duly dispatched on 27.01.2011 through SrichakraTranstech Courier which was duly received by the complainant.

Thereafter in March, 2013 the answering op again received a duly signed and filled up proposal form of Anish Roy Chowdhury in which complainant was nominee and on receipt of duly signed and filled up form the answering op issued a policy bearing No. 16003123 and as per the terms of the said policy, the subject policy was for 10 years with annual premium of Rs. 24,000/- payable for 10 years and the original policy documents were duly sent through Speed Post on 29.04.2013 and was duly received.

Further in February, 2014 the answering op again received a duly signed and filled up proposal form of Anish Roy Chowdhury in which complainant was nominee and on receipt of duly signed and filled up form the answering op issued a policy bearing No. 16638672 and as per the terms of the said policy, the subject policy was for 10 years with annual premium of Rs. 49,254/- payable for 7 years and the original policy documents were duly sent through Speed Post on 18.02.2014 and was duly received by the policy holder.

It is specifically mentioned that policy Nos.1495831 and 17773429 are already lapsed but policy No. 17383766 is still being alive.So, there was no negligence and deficiency on the part of the op and in fact as per clause of the policy which are lapsed in respect of no benefit should be payable and as because during free look period, it was not cancelled and there is no fault on the part of the op for which the present complaint should be dismissed against op no.1.

Op nos.2 & 5India Infoline Insurance Brokers’ Ltd. and Sumit Mukherjee by filing written statement submitted that at the time of discussion op no.2 duly discussed and narrated each and every benefits, terms, returns, payment mode, frequency for the payments of several policies of different manufacturer to the complainant and thereafter complainant decided to invest in the policies.

Op no.2 further stated that at the time of discussion they duly discussed about the Free Look Period to the complainant and complainant had his opinion to stop or rectify the policies during the Free Look Period as mentioned in the policy bonds also.Even after receipt of the policy bonds complainant has no chosen to exercise the free look period option and accordingly complainant knowing fully well purchased the same and op nos. 2 & 5 selected policies to their concern Pre Login Verification Team and the said team duly confirmed those policies in question further from the complainant and the complainant instructed op no. to initiate the policies and issued cheques in favour of the op nos. 1,3 & 4 and thereafter op no.2 forwarded the same to the op nos. 1, 3 and 4 for processing and all other allegations are made against op nos. 2 & 5 is completely baseless and false and there is no solid ground which is evident from the policy bond.But they admitted that they filled up form and they did everything after collecting the signature and it cannot be plea being an educated person as complainant opted that policy one after another.

So, there is no negligence and deficiency on the part of the ops for which this complaint should be dismissed against op nos. 2 & 5.

Further op no.4 by filing written statement submitted that the entire complaint is false and fabricated and on receipt of written proposal form together with premium amount, a policybearing No. 14153912 was issued in favour of the complainant and the subject policy was for a term of 10 years with annual premium of Rs. 1 lakh payable for 5 years and the original policy documents were duly dispatched on 27.01.2011 through SrichakraTranstech Courier which was duly received by the complainant.

Thereafter in March, 2013 the answering op again received a duly signed and filled up proposal form of Anish Roy Chowdhury in which complainant was nominee and on receipt of duly signed and filled up form the answering op issued a policy bearing No. 16003123 and as per the terms of the said policy, the subject policy was for 10 years with annual premium of Rs. 24,000/- payable for 10 years and the original policy documents were duly sent through Speed Post on 29.04.2013 and was duly received by the complainant.But there was no complaint or fault for cancellation and no request was made from complainant to ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. for cancellation of the policy.

Subsequently op received duly filled up proposal form along with premium amount and issued a policy bearing No. 16638672 and terms of the policy was for 10 years subject to payment of Rs. 49,254/- payable for seven years and the original policy documents were duly sent on 18.02.2014 and was received by the policy holder.But any point of time no objection was raised by the complainant.But in the meantime policy bearing No. 14153912 had already been lapsed for non-payment of further premium and op did not mis-sale it and never allured the complainant for purchasing the same and further complainant has admitted that policy was lapsed because non-payment of premium though the complainant was aware of the terms and conditions of the policy. So op no.4 prayed for dismissal of this case.

Decision with reasons

On an in depth study of the complaint and further scrutiny of all the documents and also hearing the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and further on over all evaluation of the materials on record, we find that this complainant is a renowned CSIR Emeritus Scientist and also former Professor Indian Statistical Institute and he is always engaged in different type of research work, teaching etc. and now he is professor in Bethune College, Kolkata and if in fact such sort of person is not able to devote himself for investment or etc. and in fact such sort of persons are practically out of picture of worldly affairs but in reality some reason or otherwise or for protection of income tax etc. as per ops’ field officer advise purchased one time policies.

Complainant was compelled to purchase for the policy from the insurance agent for their progress.But he relied upon the agent and their version and purchased it but he did not think for a moment what would be the fate of the policy but it is general view of the public at large that if policy is lapsed in that case he is entitled to get back amount which has been deposited from time to time after deduction of 5 percent to 10 percent as per IRDA guideline.

But in the present case all the ops have not ventilated that in respect of the lapsed policy, they informed the complainant for restoration or for depositing the subsequent premium with penalty etc. and that is fact.So, complainant who is devoted in his scientific research work cannot remind himself of the dates when the premium would be paid etc. and such sort of persons always relying upon the agents but agent also did not knock him for payment etc.

It is equally true that there was no contract in between the complainant and op Insurance Company at the point of time before accepting the proposal form in which practically complainant signed in place of his son and that has not been denied by the op Insurance Company and in such a manner agent collected signature of the complainant in respect of the policy of his son.It is no doubt unfair trade practice on the part of the agent and brokers and in fact they mis-sold such policies only for the purpose of the benefit of the Insurance Company for getting commission and the above allegation as brought against the Insurance Company and their agent and brokers are not denied by the op Insurance Company.

But op Insurance Companyhas tried to convince that it is the fault on the part of the brokers or agent not the Insurance Company.But it is equally true that the present Insurance CompanyICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co., HDFC or Reliance Insurance Company have no market if their cheat brokers and agents do not act, that means indirectly and directly Insurance Company has appointed those cheat brokers and agents for the purpose of collecting one time premium with a hope that after lapse of the period that amount shall be the capital of the insurance business and that is common practice of the present Insurance Company HDFC, ICICI or Reliance and it is not the first case, huge number of cases have been filed and in all the cases it is found that after lapse of the policy, the Insurance Company have not refunded the amount after deducting 5 or 10 percent service charge out of the premium amount as service charge as per guideline of IRDA of the year 2012-2014.

Another factor is that lapsed amount shall be refunded after lapse of three years from the date of purchasing of the policy and if the policy is found lapsed, after deducting 5 percent to 10 percent service charge balance amount should be refunded.But no private Insurance Companies are willing to do it because private Insurance Companies have collected the huge amount in this way and made a huge capital.But in West Bengal position of Insurance Company like Reliance is very bad and their business is going to be closed.But even then they have in the market for the purpose of deceiving the customers/consumers in such a manner.But Consumer Forum is here and there and they are not controlling the same by taking such positive step.But anyhow this Forum in all the cases has taken serious view and directed all the private Insurance Companies to refund the lapsed policy amount after deducting 5 percent to 10 percent as service charge and in most of the cases the Insurance Companies have complied the same.

The present case is very glaring instance in respect of showing negative attitude of the Insurance Company not to refund the lapsed amount even after expiry of three years.But it is the duty of the Insurance Company to refund the amount after deducting 5 percent to 10 percent service charge.But we are very much anxious even after passing one hundred of judgements even after compliance made by those Insurance Companies in so many cases why they have not followed the same in subsequent event the spirit of the judgment that means they are sending the customers before Consumer Forum for relief, so that customers may be harassed for proceeding with the case and ultimately they shall have to refund the lapsed amount and ultimately they shall have to get 5 percent or 10 percent service charge and that is their capital.

Situation is very alarming about the conduct, manner of trading, manner of deceiving the consumers, manner of adopting unfair practice.In the present case we have gathered that except one policy, all the policies are lapsed.In this context we want to ventilate that Policy Nos. 14952831 and 17773429 are already lapsed and the out of those two - first policy was effective from 19.01.2011 and second policy was effective from 25.05.2013 and in the meantime three years already lapsed but only one premium was paid.

As policies were purchased from ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co., they are bound to refund the amount after deducting 5 percent to 10 percent service charge and it is as per guideline of IRDA as because policy No. 17383786 is enforced and has not yet been lapsed about that no order can be passed.

Further on proper consideration of materials documents, it is found that policy No. 14153912 issued by HDFC Insurance Company has already been lapsed.He also purchased another policy bearing Policy No. 16003123 that is also lapsed and it was purchased from HDFC Standard Insurance Company and another policy bearing No.16638672 from HDFC Standard Insurance Company that is also lapsed and in the said three policies, complainant had paid one premium i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 24,000/- and Rs.49,990/-.

Similarly Policy Nos.51374150 and 51374121 and also policy being Client ID No. 87053131 are also lapsed but that was issued by the Reliance Life Insurance Company.

In respect of two policies of ICICI which are lapsed complainant paid total premium of Rs. 66,400/-.

In respect of three policies being Nos. 16003123, 16638672 and 14153912, complainant paid Rs. 24,000/-, Rs. 49,990/ and Rs. 1,00,000/-.

Invariably HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company is liable to refund the entire amount in respect of the policies out of the three after deducting 5 percent to 10 percent as service charge.But they have not complied the IRDA guidelines and did not refund of deposited amount after deduction of service charge 5 percent to 10 percent because his life is not insured and the policy is already lapsed.This simple theorization is not being followed by the private Insurance Company for the purpose of grabbing money of the lapsed Insurance policies which is completely immortal act in view of the fact that Insurance Act is a social legislation.

In the present case it is proved that this aged renowned professor must not be harassed by the Insurance Company.Insurance Company ought to have showed their moral and corporate responsibility by cooperating with such renowned professor of India and Scientist and to refund him such amount after deduction of 5 percent to 10 percent service charge, but that is not done.When that has not been done and that is the nature of trade by selling insurance product in the market launched by the Insurance Companies HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co., ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company and Reliance Life Insurance Company.

Taking into consideration all the above materials including the findings, we are convinced to hold that this renowned scientist and professor of India was no doubt deceived by the ops and in fact at any point of time no notice was sent to the complainant or about non continuation of the policy or about dis-continuation of the policy or no such information was sent to the complainant that complainant did not pay the subsequent premiums and that is the common practice of the Insurance Companies not to send reminder or yearly notice for premium.But as per IRDA Guideline and also as per observation of the National Commission including Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is the duty of Insurance Company to send intimation of yearly premium or payment.But in this case that have not been done.It is also clear that lapsed of Insurance Policy is on the part of the Insurance Company which means the deficiency by rendering such service if any to the insured when policy is a contract and in this regard the spirit of ruling reported in 2015 (I) CPR 263 (NC) is relied.

So, the complainant who was busy heavily in respect of teaching, research work and other scientist research work, it was not possible for him to know about the fate.But practically he was well aware about the fact that it is one time premium payment policy.So, he was satisfied after lapse of five or three years, he shall have to get back the same. But complainant did not believe that in respect of it he was deceived by the Insurance Company and by their Relation Manager and Branch Manager and at the same time ops have not stated anything about the allegation of the complainant against Insurance Company and their conduct, their Branch Manager’s conduct.

          So, allegation is made by the complainant is found truthful and for which ops have not challenged the same, but they only stated that they received the proposal form along with premium, so they opened it.  But truth is that there was no meeting in between the complainant and the Insurance Company at any point of time prior to acceptance of the Insurance Policy.

          Another factor is that Reliance Life Insurance Company did not appear, however ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company submitted one printed copy showing that complainant purchased a policy and before and that submitted his desire to purchase, but that is completely false and it was collected by the ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company from Reliance Life Insurance Company. But Reliance Life Insurance Company did not appear to contest this case that means there is a very close relationship in between all the private Insurance Companies in this regard and ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company has failed to show any such consent letter.  Reliance Life Insurance Company did not challenge any allegation.  But ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company collected paper from Reliance Life Insurance Company and submitted it and it is one kind of unfair trade practice on the part of the ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company.

          Whatever it may be we are convinced to hold that in respect of the lapsed policy, the Insurance Companies are legally bound to refund the said amount after deducting 5 percent as service charge as per guideline of IRDA when Insurance Companies did not intimate the complainant about the lapse of the policy or dis-continuation of the policy or for payment of subsequent policies’ premium etc.  When that is the fact then it is clear that initially complainant was deceived by the Branch Development Manager, Relation Manager of the Insurance Companies who collected the first premium and application and along with signature of the complainant.

          Another fact is that some of Insurance Policies are in the name of the son of the complainant where complainant signed the name of his son and it was collected by the BDM or Relation Manager that means Insurance is void abinitio.

          On overall evaluation of all the materials and the provision of law including the conduct, we are convinced that all the Insurance Companies acted illegally, they managed to sell those policies by giving false representation about the fate of the policy or about the term of the policy etc.

          So, in the above circumstances in respect of the lapsed policies, Insurance Companies must have to refund the deposited amount against the policies after deducting 5 percent as service charge and in view of the above findings this complaint succeeds.

          Hence, it is

ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the op nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5 respectively with cost of Rs. 5,000/- each against the contesting ops and same is allowed exparte against other ops with cost of Rs. 5,000/- and each op shall have to pay the cost separately to the complainant.

          Op no.1 is hereby directed to refund the entire amount of policy nos. 14952831, 17383786 and 17773429 after deducting 5 percent service charge to the complainant.

          Similarly op no.3 is hereby directed to refund the entire deposited amount against Policy Client Id Nos. 87053131, 51374150 and 51374121 after deducting 5 percent as service charge to the complainant.

          Further op no.4 is hereby directed to refund the entire amount against Policy Nos. 16003123 and 16638672 after deducting 5 percent as service charge to the complainant.

          At the same time each and every op shall have to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- each to the complainant for causing mental pain and sufferings and also for mis-selling such sort of product to the complainant by selling the same to the complainant by adopting deceitful manner of trade and by mis-representation.

          All the Insurance Companies are also directed not to make any auto-debit of any amount from the complainant’s joint account being No. 0018140526552 henceforth because all the policies in respect of which decrees passed shall be treated as cancelled.

          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 and for harassing the complainant for further period, each op shall have to pay penal damages  at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected, it shall be deposited to this Forum.

          Even if it is found that ops are reluctant to comply the order, in that case ops shall be prosecuted u/s 25 read with Section 27 of C.P. Act, 1986 for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed upon the ops.