UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, MEMBER 

          Instant complaint u/S 17 (1) (a)(i) has been filed by the Complainant against the OPs targeting their deficiencies in rendering services and also for adopting unlawful trade practices against the Complainants .

            In the instant complaint , the Complainant No.1 , a senior citizen purchased in March 2008 a policy under the name and style TATA   AIG  LIFE INVESMENT FLEXI , having policy No. U009029121 .As per conditions of the policy, the Complainant had to pay three instalments of premium till March, 2010 @ Rs. 50,000/- each .

            The Complainant fulfilled the policy conditions through payment of total premium of Rs. 1,50,000/- by the given dead line. He , however, did not receive the matured value of his money back . Instead he , at the instance of OP No.2 , a senior executive of OP No.1 , was made to invest further amount of Rs. 97,000/- under the guaranteed savings insurance plan of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance in the name of Complainant No. 2 , his daughter,  being misconvinced to the extent that the investment of certain further amount even for a very small period would enable him getting substantial return better than the same that any bank would offer on their fixed deposits.

            The Complainant, after making further investment as above, received only Rs. 1,18,178.96 on an assurance that he was still to get an amount of Rs. 1,45,000/- within a few days.

            None of the OPs , as per complaint , acted upon their assurance and the Complainants , in their efforts to get the said promised amount of Rs. 1,45,000/- , was further deceived by the OPs when he was made to invest further amounts of Rs. 98,999/- , 27,500/-, and Rs. 20,000/- respectively in 3 different policies of Reliance Life Insurance Guaranteed Money Back Plan issued in their names .

            After a number of futile efforts to get back Rs. 1,45,000/- from TATA AIG and also their efforts to know the status of the rest of the policies being gone in vain, the Complainants realized that they had been cheated by the OPs. The aggrieved Complainants then filed the complaint case. The impugned judgment and order arose from the said complaint .

            Heard Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of either sides.

            Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Complainant repeated the entire episode in the same lines as narrated in the complaint and as described hereinabove.

            The Ld. Advocate, drawing the notice of the bench to his letter dated 14.05.2015 addressed to the OPs , running page No. 87 of the case record , submitted that his points of queries were all about making available the names of the Directors of the OP Company and the present status of the existing policies as well. As submitted further , the postal receipt at page No. 93 indicated that the above mentioned letter was duly delivered to the OP No. 2 who did not bother to respond to the same furnishing the required information.

            The Respondent No. 2 , the person who masterminded  the deceptive  practices , as the Ld. Advocate continued , was the Chairman of the Company at the relevant point of time. The letter dated 14.05.2015  was , therefore, addressed to nonetheless  than the Chairman of the Company who , as per the aforesaid postal receipt , received the letter but sat tight on it without responding .

            The Ld. Advocate continued further that the OP No.2 was no longer in service of the OP No.1 Company. As pointed out , the OP No.1, in his evidence on affidavit , page 3 , para 9 and 10 used the pronoun ‘we’ which only indicated that the evidence in question was filed for more than one OP . The reply by the OP No.1 in respect of question No. 4 of the questionnaire submitted by the Complainant , affirming the same to be meant for the OP No.1 only , therefore, appeared to be self contradictory .

            As maintained by the Ld. Advocate, the Complainant received no information about the status of the policy in spite of his moving from pillar to post for obtaining the said information. The Complainant , as further maintained , could not avail himself of the free look period since he never had any idea about the deceptive  motive of the OPs and accordingly , decided to stick to the policy he was made to opt for .

            With the above submission, the Ld. Advocate prayed for the complaint to be allowed with directions upon the OPs as prayed for therein .

            The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the OPs , on the contrary, submitted that the complaint value which, at para 23 of the complaint , was shown as Rs. 25,00,000/- was not corroborated with the item wise  break up . Instead , the prayer part of the complaint had shown a claim much less than Rs. 20,00,000/-  leaving rooms to  believe that the complaint lacked the pecuniary jurisdiction.

            As submitted, the Complainant did not opt for refund  as provided in the free look period . The Complainant, being an educated person , should have gone through the policy conditions in detail before opting for adoption of the policy in question .

            The Ld. Advocate went on to submit that the Complainant did not make the insurance company a party to the complaint and failed to appreciate that the OP No.1 , being a corporate broker was mere an agent having no authority to take any policy decision . As submitted, the complaint is nothing other than a ploy of the Complainants to extract money from the OPs.

            With the above submission, the Ld. Advocate prayed for the complaint to be dismissed .

            Perused the papers on record . The Complainants , at para 22 in their complaint , had declared the complaint value as Rs. 25,00,000/-. We have gone through the complaint and policies involved with the same . It appears that the total sum assured in respect of the policies taken by the Complainants comes to Rs. 19,21,299/- which together with the cost and compensation for the amount of Rs.50,000/- and 3,00,000/- respectively , as claimed in the complaint, comes to Rs. 22,71,299/- only . The complaint , therefore, was very much within the pecuniary jurisdiction   of this Commission .

            The Complainants , as it revealed from the record, adopted the policy on signing the policy papers . It also revealed that the Complainants adopted as many as 4 number of policies sponsored by  OP No.1 through its Senior Executive being OP No. 2 in their constant effort to get back the balance amount of Rs. 1,45,000/- from TATA AIG Policy .

             The LIC Policies being a contract between the Insurer and the Insured , the policy conditions are binding force upon the parties involved . Any deviation from the policy conditions on the part of any of the aforesaid parties would amount to violation which would tantamount a lapse on the part of the party concerned. Moreover, it is difficult to understand the reasons behind the Complainants making the same missteppings on more than one occasions . We have reservation to accept the logic that the Complainants have unknowingly or inadvertently made the same mistake on number of occasions in spite of their becoming  victims of similar allegedly deceptive practices by the same OPs.

            It further appeared that the Complainants made the OP Nos. 1 and 2, who are merely the corporate brokers and through whom the policies are executed , the parties to the complaint without making the Insurance Company the party . The Insurance Company being the necessary party on the instant issue , the complaint had sustained the demerits of non-joinder of necessary party .

             Keeping in view the facts and circumstances  narrated above , we are of considered view that the complaint is bereft of any merit to be entertained . Accordingly, the complaint stands dismissed . No order as to costs.