Date of Filing : 14/05/2015

Order No.  20  dt.  16/02/2018

          The case of the complainant in brief is that the original complainant as the proposer applied for 3 insurance policies to o.p. insurance company wherein the son of the original complainant viz. Debol Raj chanda was the life assured of the said 3 policies. The original complainant as the proposer applied for the insurance policy on 17.7.12 against a premium of 24.200/- and o.ps. after realizing the said amount issued a policy certificate to the complainant. As the proposer the original complainant again applied for another insurance policy on 27.7.12 against a premium of Rs.92,000/- and o.ps. also issued the policy certificate to the complainant . Again the original complainant as a proposer applied for another insurance policy on 23.8.12 against a premium of rs.70,000/- and o.ps. also issued the policy certificate to the complainant. For applying for the said 3 policies the son of the original complainant as the life assured of the said 3 policies would have to put his signature on the said 3 application forms. But during that time the son of the original complainant was posted at Dibrugar and the complainant requested the o.ps. for obtaining the signature of the son of the complainant in respect of those 3 policies. During that period the original complainant along with his wife went to Dibrugar where his son was posted and they returned to Siliguri on 10.3.13. Returning home at Siliguri the original complainant came to know that those 3 policy certificates were delivered to the neighbour of the complainant. Immediately after getting such policies the complainant lodged the claim but the claim of the complainant for refund of the money was denied for which the original complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the amount of Rs.1,90,000/- as well as compensation and litigation cost.

                The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant has alleged cheating, forgery and mis-selling, such serious allegations require a proper trial by a Civil / Criminal Court and evidence has to be taken which is not possible in such summary trial. The complainant has alleged that through the broker India Infoline made arrangement for those policies, but said India Infoline has not been a party in this case. As per the terms and conditions of the policy the insurance terms have to be construed strictly and no relief which travels beyond the terms of the insurance policy can be granted, hence no case for deficiency in service is made out in this as there is no breach on the part of insurance company. The company was in receipt duly signed and filled in proposal form from the complainant issued the policy on life assured of his son Mr. Debal Raj Chanda. The o.ps. on believing the information given by the complainant in the proposal form to be true and correct issued the policies. The complainant signed a declaration in the proposal form stating that he understands the policy terms and conditions and further agreed that the statements made in the proposal form shall form the basis of the contract between himself and the company. After issuance of the policies the complainant did not pray for cancellation of the policy within free look period and there was no deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. and as such, o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.

                On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:

1.  Whether the complainant applied for those policies with o.ps.?
2. Whether the complainant within the free look period raised his objection for cancellation of those policies?
3. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
4. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons:

                All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

                Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the original complainant as the proposer applied for 3 insurance policies to o.p. insurance company wherein the son of the original complainant viz. Debol Raj chanda was the life assured of the said 3 policies. The original complainant as the proposer applied for the insurance policy on 17.7.12 against a premium of 24.200/- and o.ps. after realizing the said amount issued a policy certificate to the complainant. As the proposer the original complainant again applied for another insurance policy on 27.7.12 against a premium of Rs.92,000/- and o.ps. also issued the policy certificate to the complainant . Again the original complainant as a proposer applied for another insurance policy on 23.8.12 against a premium of rs.70,000/- and o.ps. also issued the policy certificate to the complainant. For applying for the said 3 policies the son of the original complainant as the life assured of the said 3 policies would have to put his signature on the said 3 application forms. But during that time the son of the original complainant was posted at Dibrugar and the complainant requested the o.ps. for obtaining the signature of the son of the complainant in respect of those 3 policies. During that period the original complainant along with his wife went to Dibrugar where his son was posted and they returned to Siliguri on 10.3.13. Returning home at Siliguri the original complainant came to know that those 3 policy certificates were delivered to the neighbour of the complainant. Immediately after getting such policies the complainant lodged the claim but the claim of the complainant for refund of the money was denied for which the original complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the amount of Rs.1,90,000/- as well as other reliefs.

                The o.ps. argued that the complainant has alleged cheating, forgery and mis-selling, such serious allegations require a proper trial by a Civil / Criminal Court and evidence has to be taken which is not possible in such summary trial. The complainant has alleged that through the broker India Infoline made arrangement for those policies, but said India Infoline has not been a party in this case. As per the terms and conditions of the policy the insurance terms have to be construed strictly and no relief which travels beyond the terms of the insurance policy can be granted, hence no case for deficiency in service is made out in this as there is no breach on the part of insurance company. The company was in receipt duly signed and filled in proposal form from the complainant issued the policy on life of his son Mr. Debal Raj Chanda. The o.ps. on believing the information given by the complainant in the proposal form to be true and correct issued the policies. The complainant signed a declaration in the proposal form stating that he understands the policy terms and conditions and further agreed that the statements made in the proposal form shall form the basis of the contract between himself and the company. After issuance of the policies the complainant did not pray for cancellation of the policy within free look period and there was no deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. and as such, o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.

                Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant applied for 3 policies and cheques were issued by him and the policies were issued to the complainant. It is relevant to mention here that during the pendency of the case the original complainant died and his legal heirs have been substituted including the widow, son and daughter. It has been alleged by the complainant that the life assured was made to the son of the original complainant and the life assured ought to have put his signature on the proposal form. It appears from the materials on record that through India Infoline the applications for the policies were made. It is an admitted fact that the complainant put his signature on the application form after knowing the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant after the lapse of several months from the receipt of the policies raised objection that he was not at his residence at Siliguri and thereby he failed to receive the policies and the same was delivered to his neighbour, but the neighbour has not been cited as witness of this case by swearing an affidavit that he/ she received the policies during the absence of the complainant. It is relevant to mention here that the said agent India Infoline has not been made a party in this case. The complainant has alleged that the fraud was practiced upon the complainant which cannot be decided by this Forum. The same can be agitated before the Civil / Criminal Court where extensive evidence is required for proving allegation of the complainant. Apart from the said fact it appears that the complainant did not raise his objection for cancellation of those policies within the free look period of the receipt of the policies. The effect of the policies started from the date of issuance of the policy and if there would have any untoward incident during the pendency of the said issuance of the policies and receiving the policies by the complainant, the o.ps. would have to pay the entire amount in respect of the sum assured. The complainant could not file any document to show that he did not get the benefit of 80C of Income Tax of payment of the policy amount to be deducted from the gross income of assessee of the Income Tax. In view of such anomalies we hold that the complainant himself was at fault and by making false allegations against the o.ps. filed this case which has got no merit to be allowed. Accordingly, we hold that the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

                Hence, ordered,

                That the CC No.250/2015 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.