Delhi

North West

CC/617/2024

ANIL VOHRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDIA FIRST LIFE INSURENCE CO LTD - Opp.Party(s)

21 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION-V, NORTH-WEST GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/617/2024
( Date of Filing : 30 Aug 2024 )
 
1. ANIL VOHRA
C-262, 3RD-FLOOR, GALI NO-08, MAJLIS PARK, ADARSH NAGAR
NORTH WEST
DELHI
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. INDIA FIRST LIFE INSURENCE CO LTD
INDIA FIRST LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD, 301, B-WING, THE QUBE, INFINITY PARK, DINDOSHI-FILM CITY ROAD, MALAD EAST MUMBAI-400097,
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA
2. USHA USHA
E-109,BHARAT VIHAR,KAKROLA,SOUTH WEST DELHI-
SOUTH WEST
DELHI
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  NIPUR CHANDNA PRESIDING MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 21 Nov 2024
Final Order / Judgement

MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

 

ORDER

21.11.2024

1.         A complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act filed. In brief the facts are that complainant purchased insurance policy by paying a sum of Rs. 50,000/- against the premium. It is further alleged by the complainant that while issuing the policy in question OP assured the complainant that he had to pay one time premium of Rs. 50,000/- against the premium, he was further assured that he will get commission of Rs. 15,000/- as he has directly purchased the policy from OP, it was further assured that there would be medical benefit up to Rs. 5 Lakh and he will get Rs. 75,000/- as interest in the next year with liberty to withdraw the money as and when desired after the completion of one year.

2.       It is further alleged by the complainant that in the month of June, 2021 he came to know that all the benefits assured by OP are false and as such complainant requested OP to refund the premium deposit along with interest. Despite issuing various emails to OP and filing the complaint on IRDA email ID no response has been received from OP Ins. Co. and as such complainant approached insurance ombudsman for redressal of his grievance but the insurance ombudsman passed an award against the complainant and in favor of OP.

3.       The complainant in his complaint at para 10 has alleged that at the end of the policy bond his photo was affixed on a form and it does not bear his signature in fact some other person has signed the form. He alleged that the OP sold him the policy by cheating. The complainant further prayed that this Commission should take the appropriate legal action against the person or company who cheated him and sold the policy in question with a further request to warn the OP not to cheat anyone in future. With the aforesaid prayer the complainant approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance.

4.       The present complaint case is on admission stage. We have heard the arguments advance at the bar by complainant and have perused the record.

5.       The complainant has alleged in the present complaint that the present complaint be allowed against the OP as at the end of the policy bond his photo was affixed on a form and it does not bear his signature in fact some other person has signed the form. He alleged that the OP sold him the policy by cheating. The complainant further prayed that this Commission should take the appropriate legal action against the person or company who cheated him and sold the policy in question with a further request to warn the OP not to cheat anyone in future. With the aforesaid prayer the complainant approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance.

6.       The present complaint case is purely based on cheating conducted by the OP. The main allegation in the present complaint is of cheating. The law is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this respect and the reliance can be  placed on Ravneet Singh Bagga vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and Another (2000) 1 SCC 66, Branch Manager, Indigo Airlines Kolkata and Another Vs. Kalpana Rani Debbarma and others (2020) 9 SCC 424 and The Chairman and Managing Director, city Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs R. Chandramohan in civil appeal no.7289 of 2009 decided on 27.03.2023 (Supreme Court).

7.       The present complaint involves the facts which require adjudication of criminality like cheating which could not be decided by the Commission under the C.P Act 2019. The law is well settled that the proceeding before the commission being summary in nature cannot decide the criminal liabilities and offences such as cheating.

8.       On the basis of above observation and discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission, accordingly dismissed.

          File be consigned to record room.

9.       Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry. Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on   21.11.2024.

 

 

Sanjay Kumar                                           Nipur Chandna                       

               President                                                         Member

 
 
[ NIPUR CHANDNA]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.