Order-15.

Date-14/07/2016.

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

The complainant by filing a complaint has stated that he being a senior citizen has purchased one insurance policy for his grandson being policy No.17000283 from O.P.-1 through O.P.-2 as one time premium paid policy. But after receiving the insurance folder he came to learn that the policy in question is a term policy where premium will be paid for a certain period by yearly/half yearly premium and is different from one time premium paid policy which the O.P.-2 had convinced the complainant before selling of the said policy.

The complainant raised objection and prayed for correction of the policy to the O.Ps. on various occasions but both the O.Ps. did not pay heed. Thereafter the complainant lodged complain before the Vigilance department of O.P.-2 as well as Commissioner of Police, Kolkata and lastly approached before the Consumer Affairs department for redressal but to no good. Finding no way the complainant has filed this complaint before this Forum with the prayer mentioned in the complaint petition.

O.P.-1 has contested the case by filing a Memorandum of Understanding between the complainant and O.P.-1 where it has stated that the disputed policy in question has corrected and complainant has no grievance against O.P.-1 and O.P.-1 prayed for expunging its name from the case.

O.P.-2 has contested this case by filing W.V. denying the allegations of complainant stating inter alia that the O.P.-2 is not connected with the purchased policy in question being No.17000283 rather the complainant has purchased other two policies bearing Nos.17471254 and 17558083 in the name of his son and his daughter-in-law from O.P.-1 through O.P.-2 and those policies are still subsisting and this O.P. prayed for dismissal of the case. O.P.-2 also submitted evidence, questionnaire and reply as adduced evidence on its behalf.

Point for Decision

Whether complainant is entitled to get compensation?

Decision with Reasons

On careful perusal of complaint, W.V. evidence, questionnaire, reply and argument advanced by the parties we find that O.P.-2 being an Agent of insurance company highly approached and convinced the complainant to purchase one time premium paid policy which will get better benefit and being convinced by the O.P.-2 the complainant had purchased the said policy being No.17000283 from O.P.-1 through the Agent O.P.-2 by paying Rs.50,000/- as premium. After sometime on receiving the policy folder the complainant came to know that the received policy documents is term policy which will be paid yearly and half yearly term for a certain period and it is not an one time premium paid policy then the complainant lodged complaint for mis-selling said policy throughthe O.Ps. and requested them on various occasions for correction of the policy in question and convert the policy from the term policy to one time premium paid policy but both the O.Ps. did pay heed. Thereafter the complainant lodged a complaint to Vigilance Cell and Commissioner of Police, Kolkata regarding mis-selling insurance policy and subsequently he moved the matter before the Director, Consumer Affairs Department, Kolkata but in vain.

          From the case record we find that after long lapse of time and during pendency of the complaint case the O.P.-1 has corrected the policy in question which O.P.-1 could do earlier without harassing the complainant and in view of the fact it clearly shows that O.P.-1 in connivance with O.P.-2 mis-sold the policy No.17000283 which has been corrected after free look period and both the O.Ps. deliberatelymis-sold the policy to the old aged person for ulterior gain.

At the time of argument complainant submits that O.P.-2 being an Agent had created pressure upon himto purchase two other policies of the same amount on condition the policy purchased earlier will be corrected as one time policy. Then under such pressure of O.P.-2, the complainant again paid Rupees Fifty Thousand for purchasing other two polices, one for his son and another for his daughter-in-law. In the W.V. O.P.-2 has admitted the fact and both the subsequent policies are also existing.

This Forum has gathered knowledge that in so many cases both the Agent and Insurance Company are in deceitful manner approached and convinced the public at large to mis-sell the insurance policy for collecting huge commission and also grab the public money for which public at large are cheated day by day.

In view of the discussion above we think that both the O.Ps. areguilty of deficient in service and have adopted deceitful manner of trade and unfair trade practice by mis-selling the insurance policy to the complainant. They have also harassed the complainant for which complainant is entitled to compensation from the O.Ps.

Thus the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

The complaint case is allowed in part with cost of Rs.5,000/- against each of the O.Ps.

That O.Ps.-1 and 2 are hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- each for harassment, mental agony and monetary loss caused to the complainant. O.Ps. are further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- each to the complainant for adopting unfair trade practice. The O.Ps. are directed to pay to the complainant total award within 30 days from the date of this order failing which penal damage of Rs.100/- per diem shall be imposed to be paid to this Forum.

The complainant is at liberty to put this award in execution as mandated in Law.