Order No.  13  dt.  26/03/2019

          The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased two policies being policy nos.400984304 and 400984405. The agent of o.p. bank explained the complainant that the policy would be a normal life insurance policy for a term of 5 years with 3 years locking period and also that the policy would be a onetime payment policy and no further payment of premium is to be made. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- each in respect of two policies being cheque no.150405 dt.6.12.16 and cheque no.150404 dt.5.12.16 i.e. he paid a sum of Rs.1 lakh in total. After receiving the policies the complainant came to learn that the policies were different and after enquiry the complainant came to know that a few signatures of the complainant were forged. The complainant thereafter contacted the Branch Manager of o.p. bank and he was assured that fresh policies would be sent. Subsequently the executive / agent called Mr. Sudip Sarkar and Rakesh Sharma came to the office of the complainant and returned the old polices without any changes. The complainant, thereafter, dissatisfied with the policies issued several letters, but all his efforts were in vain. The activities of o.ps. clearly established the fact that there was gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to issue fresh policies after necessary changes in favour of the complainant 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. In their w/v o.p. nos.1 and 2 stated that IDBI Bank Ltd. and IDBI Federal Life Insurance Co. Ltd. are two different legal entity in the eye of law. The o.p. nos.1 and 2 are not at all concerned regarding the policies in question. The complainant has alleged that the signatures of the complainant were forged. The forgery of the signatures is a serious crime and needs to be dealt with a proper trial court which cannot and should not be dealt in summary proceeding of Consumer Forum. Moreover, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain such dispute. The complainant filed this case on the basis of false and vexatious allegations against the o.ps. for which o.p. nos.1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the case.

                In their w/v o.p. nos.3 and 4 stated that the complainant has made allegations against the agent, but the agent has not been made a party to this case and because of non joinder of necessary parties the case should be dismissed. It was further stated that the complainant had voluntarily opted for two policies, policy term of 10 years and premium term of 5 years, as clearly specified by the complainant in the proposal form as well as in the schedules of the policies. The complainant could have cancelled the policies within the free look period, but he did not avail of the same. It was alleged that the policy is a contract between the policy holder and the insurer and the parties to it are bound by its terms and conditions and if a person sings any document it is presumed that he has signed after reading and understanding it properly along with the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Since the complainant has alleged that fraud was practiced upon him which cannot be decided by this Forum. It was further stated that the status of the policies have lapsed since the complainant failed to pay the premium. The o.ps. strictly acted as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Since the case filed by the complainant on the basis of some manufactured allegations against o.p. nos.3 and 4 for which o.p. nos.3 and 4 also 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 obtained the policies issued by o.ps.?
2. Was there any fraud practiced upon the complainant?
3. Whether the complainant failed to apply for cancellation of the policies within the free look period?
4. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
5. 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 complainant purchased two policies being policy nos.400984304 and 400984405. The agent of o.p. bank explained the complainant that the policy would be a normal life insurance policy for a term of 5 years with 3 years locking period and also that the policy would be a onetime payment policy and no further payment of premium is to be made. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- each in respect of two policies being cheque no.150405 dt.6.12.16 and cheque no.150404 dt.5.12.16 i.e. he paid a sum of Rs.1 lakh in total. After receiving the policies the complainant came to learn that the policies were different and after enquiry the complainant came to know that a few signatures of the complainant were forged. The complainant thereafter contacted the Branch Manager of o.p. bank and he was assured that fresh policies would be sent. Subsequently the executive / agent called Mr. Sudip Sarkar and Rakesh Sharma came to the office of the complainant and returned the old polices without any changes. The complainant, thereafter, dissatisfied with the policies issued several letters, but all his efforts were in vain. The activities of o.ps. clearly established the fact that there was gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to issue fresh policies after necessary changes in favour of the complainant as well as compensation and litigation cost.

                Ld. lawyer for the o.p. nos.1 and 2 argued that IDBI Bank Ltd. and IDBI Federal Life Insurance Co. Ltd. are two different legal entity in the eye of law. The o.p. nos.1 and 2 are not at all concerned regarding the policies in question. The complainant has alleged that the signatures of the complainant were forged. The forgery of the signatures is a serious crime and needs to be dealt with a proper trial court which cannot and should not be dealt in summary proceeding of Consumer Forum. Moreover, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain such dispute. The complainant filed this case on the basis of false and vexatious allegations against the o.ps. for which o.p. nos.1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the case.

                Ld. lawyer for the o.p. nos.3 and 4 argued that the complainant has made allegations against the agent, but the agent has not been made a party to this case and because of non joinder of necessary parties the case should be dismissed. It was further stated that the complainant had voluntarily opted for two policies, policy term of 10 years and premium term of 5 years, as clearly specified by the complainant in the proposal form as well as in the schedules of the policies. The complainant could have cancelled the policies within the free look period, but he did not avail of the same. It was alleged that the policy is a contract between the policy holder and the insurer and the parties to it are bound by its terms and conditions and if a person sings any document it is presumed that he has signed after reading and understanding it properly along with the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Since the complainant has alleged that fraud was practiced upon him which cannot be decided by this Forum. It was further stated that the status of the policies have lapsed since the complainant failed to pay the premium. The o.ps. strictly acted as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Since the case filed by the complainant on the basis of some manufactured allegations against o.p. nos.3 and 4 for which o.p. nos.3 and 4 also prayed for dismissal of the case.

                Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant has alleged that he obtained the policies and paid the premium. The complainant has alleged that fraud was practiced upon him, but he did not put his signatures on the application for obtaining the policies. In order to have the clarification of the said fact the complainant did not file any petition for appointment of handwriting expert to compare his signatures with the application for obtaining the policies from o.ps. The complainant has alleged that he had the idea that the premium was for onetime, but after getting the policies he became astonished. The complainant, thereafter, contacted the o.ps. and o.ps. assured him that they will send fresh policies. But whenever it was not found the complainant sent several letters, ultimately he had to file this case. It appears from the materials on record that the complainant after receiving the policy documents did not raise any objection within the free look period i.e. within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents. The complainant is an educated person and he sat tight over the matter for several months and subsequently raised his objection. The complainant failed to pay the premium for which the status of the policies has become lapsed. The complainant after the lapse of several months made allegations against the o.ps. but it is curious enough that the agent has not been made a party to this case. Apart from the said fact ld. lawyer for insurance company has also agreed to issue fresh policies provided the complainant wants to continue the policies after payment of the dues. In this respect the complainant has not made any submission that he wants to have the new policies from o.ps. after payment of the dues. Since the complainant has filed the case after the lapse of statutory period of availing free look period as well as he failed to take steps for detection of the fraud committed by o.ps. therefore we hold that the facts and circumstances of the case does not inspire confidence amongst us so as to held that there was any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of o.ps. Thereby we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and 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.132/2018 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.