This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Ram Kumar Patel & Anr., against the order dated 08.06.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Appeal No.FA/15/345.

2.      The case of the petitioners/complainants is that the agent of the respondent approached the petitioners and convinced the petitioners that ICICI bank will instal 3 ATMs in the premises of the petitioners subject to some security deposit and the security deposit shall be in shape of a policy.  It is also alleged that the agent assured that the policy amount shall be refunded once the ATMs are established and the petitioners start receiving the rent from the bank.  Accordingly, the petitioners/complainants paid three amounts of Rs.2,48,000/-, Rs.3,75,000/- vide demand draft dated 06.12.2012 of Punjab National Bank and amount of Rs.1,75,000/- vide demand draft of HDFC bank dated 24.12.2012 to the respondents.  The policy No.17243558 dated 13.12.2012 for premium amount of Rs.2,48,000/- was received by the complainants. Petitioners/complainants contacted respondents and  respondents told complainants that security money has been converted into policy.  After installation of ATM, policy will be cancelled and security amount deposited will be refunded.  Similarly second policy of Rs.3,75,000/- No.17301833 dated 31.01.2013 and third policy of Rs.1,75,000/- No.17301323 dated 13.02.2013 have been issued by the respondents.   These policies were for 15 years period and the premium was to be deposited every year for 7 years and policy gets surrender value when three instalments premium are paid.  It is alleged that the respondents conveyed to the complainants that installation of ATMs has been postponed by the ICICI bank and the amounts of premium paid for the policies cannot be prematurely refunded. 

3.      Aggrieved by the acts of the respondents, the complainants/petitioners filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Raigadh, (in short ‘the District Forum’).  The complaint was resisted by the respondents on the ground that the complainants have dully filled up three proposal forms and three policies have been accordingly issued.  For each policy there was a free look period of 15 days during which the complainants could have returned the policy, but the complainants did not make any objection to the issuance of the policies.  The agents, who had contacted the complainants, have not been made party in the complaint.  Based on these grounds, it was pleaded that the complaint may be dismissed. 

4.      The District Forum after considering the submissions of both the parties allowed the complaint as under on 20.05.2015:-

“(i)   Respondents/opposite parties shall make payment of Rs.7,98,000/- (rupees seven lakhs ninety eight thousand) to applicants/complainants within one month and shall also make payment of interest @ 09% on the amount 7,98,000/- (rupees seven lakhs ninety eight thousand) from the date of order to the date of payment.

(ii)   Respondents/opposite parties shall also make payment of Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand) to applicants/complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and Rs.2000/- (Two thousand0 for litigation expenses.”

5.      Aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, respondents/opposite parties preferred an appeal No.FA/15/345 before the State Commission, which was allowed vide its order dated 08.07.2015 and the order of the District Forum dated 20.05.2015 was set aside and complaint dismissed.

6.      Hence the present revision petition.

7.      Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8.      Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the agents of the respondents approached the petitioner Ram Kumar Patel and on their proposal petitioners agreed to get three ATMs installed in their premises and deposited Rs.2,48,000/- & Rs.3,57,000/- on 06.12.2012 as security amount.  The complainants further deposited Rs.1,75,000/- on 24.12.2012. The agents also told the petitioners that in lieu of the security amount, policy will be issued and once the ATMs are installed the security money will be refunded and petitioners will get rent for ATMs.  Three policies were issued titled as Guarantee Savings Plan. First policy bearing No.17243558 dated 13.12.2012, second policy No. 17301833 dated 31.01.2013 and third policy no.17301323 dated 13.02.2013.  When the machines were not installed, the petitioners were informed that the proposal has been postponed.  The petitioners requested for refund of the security amount that was involved in the three policies, but the respondents informed that the policy cannot be discontinued prematurely  as the policies were for 15 years with 7 years for premium payments.  The policy will acquire the surrender value after three years regular payment of premium.  The learned counsel argued that this was a selling tactics of the respondents that they have received money as security for ATMs, but have issued the policies under which the petitioners are required to pay further sum to the respondents.  This is clearly unfair trade practice that is why the District Forum had rightly allowed the refund of the amount paid by the petitioners.  The State Commission has grossly erred in allowing the appeal filed by the respondents.  The State Commission has allowed the appeal on the ground that no proof has been filed by the complainants/petitioners to show that there was any agreement for installation of the ATMs.  In fact the proposal for the ATM was given orally by the agents of the respondents and the complainants also accepted it orally.  The agents were not made party in the complaint case because the main grievance was from the respondents and that the agents acted on their behalf.  It has not been denied by the respondents that they were not agents of respondents.  The learned counsel stated that fraudulently these policies were issued to the petitioners and petitioners deserved refund of this amount along with compensation.

9.      Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that the signatures on the proposal forms are forged and therefore, the issuance of policies was unauthorised and illegal.

10.    Learned counsel further mentioned that the agent SMC Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. have not been made a party in the complaint case.  Admittedly, they are the agents of the respondents and relationship between them is that of principal and agent.  As per the provisions of Insurance Act, the principal i.e. the Insurance Company is responsible for acts of its agents. Hence, there was no need to make agents party in the complaint case. 

11.    On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties stated that the respondents appoint agents for enhancing the insurance business.  However, the respondents have never made any proposal for installation of ATMs.  The complainants have not made those agents party in the complaint case and the complaint was liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party.  The complainants have given duly signed proposal forms for the policies and the policies have been issued.  If the complainants were not satisfied with the terms of the policies, they should have returned the policy within the free look period of 15 days.  The complainants have not filed any such objection.  As per the policy terms, the policy acquires surrender value only after three years of payment of premium. As only one year premium has been paid, the complainants are not entitled for any refund.  The State Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint.

12.    I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material on record. The petitioners’ case is based on the assertion that there was some proposal from the side of the respondents communicated through their agents for establishment of three ATMs at the premises of the complainants.  The State Commission has pointed out that no proof has been filed to establish the fact that there was any negotiation going on for the establishment of the ATM.  In fact this Bench also asked the learned counsel for the petitioners whether they have any document or letter which can reflect anything about the establishment of ATMs.  The learned counsel had denied having any such letter or documents.  The proposal forms have been signed by the complainants.  The complainants have accepted that the agents of the respondents told them that policy will be issued for the security amount.  Thus, the complainants were aware about the fact of issuance of the policies. When they received first policy, they should have gone through the terms and conditions of the policy and should have made up their mind whether to accept the policy or to reject it.  The policy is a contract between the insurer and the insured and it has to be strictly interpreted in its agreed terms and conditions.  The policies have been issued on the duly filled proposal forms, though it has been disputed by the learned counsel for the complainants, who has stated that the signature on the proposal forms are forged but it does not stand to reason as to why complainants did not object when they received the policies without having signed the proposal forms.  Moreover, if the fraud is involved and signatures are said to be forged, the consumer fora will have no jurisdiction to adjudicate fraud and forgery cases as it would require elaborate evidence, which is not possible in the summary proceedings and the remedy lies with the civil court. It is true that the respondents have admitted that SMC Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. have worked as their agents, but they are not responsible for anything done by them, which the respondents have not authorised. The whole case of the complainants is based on the alleged negotiation for installation of ATM, however, no such evidence has been produced and therefore, the State Commission has rightly allowed the appeal. The non-joinder of the agents in the complaint case makes the case of the respondents more strong that policies were issued on the basis of dully filled proposal forms and there was no proposal relating to establishment of ATMs.      

13.    Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 08.06.2016 of the State Commission, which calls for any interference from this Commission.  Revision Petition No.2288 of 2016 is accordingly dismissed.