Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Aggrieved by and/or dissatisfied with the order dated 22-04-2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Paschim Medinipur in C.C. No. 123/2014, whereof the complaint has been dismissed, this Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Complainant of the said case, Ms Sweta Agarwal.

In a short compass, case of the Complainant is that she purchased one policy from the OP No. 2 being Policy No. 13584646.  The annual premium of this policy was Rs. 1,00,000/-. The said policy commenced on 15-03-2010. It is the further case of the Complainant that she paid due premium in respect of this policy till the year 2013.  The Complainant’s father, in order to know the status of her policy, wrote a letter to the OP Insurer on 25-02-2014.  To the utter surprise of the Complainant, the OP vide its letter dated 20-03-2014 informed that the concerned policy had been foreclosed and sent a cheque amounting to Rs. 36,201.60 in her favour.  Taken aback a notice was served upon the OP No. 2, but to no avail.  Finding no other alternative, she filed the complaint.

OP Insurance Company, in its defence, by submitting a WV stated that all the policies were issued on receipt of duly signed and filled up proposal forms from the Complainant.  It is further the case of the OP Insurer that all the policies were sent to the Complainant through Courier/Speed Post to the communication address mentioned in the proposal forms.  Therefore, in case the Complainant had any grievance, she could approach the OP for cancellation of the disputed policies within the free-look period.  The OP Insurer denied any wrongdoing on its part.

Decision with reasons

We have heard the submission advanced by the respective Ld. Advocates of the parties and gone through the material on record.

It appears that the Ld. District Forum dismissed the case out of its notion that since the Appellant alleged fraud, forgery etc., the case was not admissible before it.  We, however, completely disagree with such notion.  Mere mentioning of such words in the petition of complaint does not oust the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum straightway.  If we consider the spirit of the case in its true perspective, it would become amply clear that the root cause of the present dispute hovers around alleged missale of policy.  It is alleged by the Appellant that the disputed policies were issued without her consent and knowledge.  Surely, the nature of such dispute does not fall outside the purview of consumer dispute. 

Undisputedly, the Appellant paid insurance premium in respect of Policy No. 13584646 consecutively for two successive years, i.e., the premiums for the years 2010 and 2011.  On one hand, it is the case of the Appellant that she paid due premiums in respect of this policy for the years 2012 and 2013 in time and on the other, counter case of the Respondent Insurance Company is that premium in respect of the aforesaid policy remained unpaid since 15-03-2012. 

On closer scrutiny of the documents on record, we come across following intriguing facts:

That, Appellant issued cheque no. 842965 dated 07-03-2012 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- around the same time when premium in respect of her Policy No. 13584646 fallen due for the year 2012.  If we are to go by the claim of the Respondent Insurer, instead of renewing her existing policy, Appellant opted for a new policy being no. 16453956. Interesting to note here that Appellant issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, the policy premium was shown as Rs. 98,500/-.  Further, although the Appellant issued the cheque on 07-03-2012, the policy commencement date was mentioned as 06-03-2012. 

Similarly, the Appellant issued cheque no. 842967 dated 11-03-2013 amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- for purchasing policy no. 17547492 instead of renewing Policy no. 16453956, that she opted for only in the previous year (according to the version of the Respondent Insurer). Incidentally, this cheque was also issued around the same time when premium in respect of her Policy No. 13584646 fallen due for the year 2013. Here too, although the Appellant issued cheque for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, the policy premium was shown as Rs. 97,000/-.  Interestingly, although the cheque was issued on 11-03-2013, this policy [Policy no. 17547492] commenced on 08-03-2013.

It is very much apparent from the record that the Appellant is a financially sound person.  Otherwise, she would certainly not opt for a policy that warranted her to pay annual premium amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-. 

It defies natural prudence to opt for a new policy instead of renewing the existing policy completely disregarding the consequences of enormous financial loss that one is subjected to when a policy attains lapsed status.  Also, significant to note that the new policies issued in favour of the Appellant did not entail any significant financial or other allied benefits which would otherwise allure her to opt for the same. Similarly, the fact that the new policies were issued around the same time when the first Policy being no. 13584646 was supposed to be renewed and further that annual premium of each and every policy was almost same, the same cannot be shrugged off as a mere coincidence.

It is clear from the photocopy of proposal form that the same has not been filled up by the Appellant herself.  Although the Appellant claimed that she did not give her due consent to issue the disputed policies, it is interesting to note that the Respondent Insurer made no such endeavour to rebut such allegation by asking the concerned agent, Sri Debasish Sinha to depose before the Ld. District Forum.

It is also not clear to us as to why the Respondent Company rushed to send the cheque amounting to Rs. 36,201.60 although the Appellant made no such request. 

A fair assessment of the said realities leaves nothing to imagination that it is a clear case of unfair trade practice on the part of the concerned agent, Sri Debasish Sinha.  Strange indeed, the Respondents did not contemplate any stringent action against the said agent, a clear pointer of the fact that the Respondents have not put in place a zero tolerance policy toward such illegal activities on the part of their agents.

That the Respondents themselves were fully appreciative of the wrongdoing of their authorized agent, Sri Debasish Sinha becomes clear from the fact that vide their letter dated 30-04-2014, they offered to cancel Policy Nos. 16453956 and 17547492  and adjust the premium amounts towards renewal premium in respect of Policy No. 13584646 for the years 2012 and 2013.

However, for obvious reasons, the Appellant lost all her trust in the Respondent Company and sought back the entire deposited sum from it.  Considering all aspects, we find no irrationality in such demand of the Appellant.

The Appeal, thus, succeeds.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That the Appeal stands allowed on contest against the Respondents with cost Rs. 10,000/-.  Respondents are directed to return, within 40 days from this day, the deposited sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- together with simple interest @ 9% p.a. with effect from 09-09-2014 till full and final payment is made. The impugned order is hereby set aside.