PRESENT

          Complainant  Absent.                                                            

         Opponent  No. 1 Absent.

          Opponent No. 2 by Adv. Smt. Charushila Gimwekar present.          

                                      ORDER

(Per- Mr. S. D. MADAKE, Hon’ble President. )

1.                The  complainant  is  having saving Bank account with opp.no. 1 Bank at Andheri (W ) branch.  The representative of Indusind  bank induced the complainant to believe that bank is selling an Insurance product of opp. no. 2 as their corporate agent.  He was made to believe that for purchasing the said policy, he has to pay one time premium of Rs.Ten lacs  and he would get the maturity benefits  at the end of the ten years.

2.                The complainant stated that after receipt of policy document he came to know that bank wrongly and willfully  transferred  ten lacs to Aviva L.I.C. (opp.no.2)  in which he was required to pay premium of ten  lacs every year for 15 years.  It is alleged that complainant never opted for or agreed to transfer of amount for wrong policy without mandate.

3.                The complainant stated in para 7 of the complaint that opp.no. 1 did not take steps to rectify  the mistake even after representation  by him.  He sought cancellation of policy and refund of the amount from opp.no.1.  It  is stated that both opponents have in connivance  with each other  deceived  the complainant and prayed for  direction to opponents for refund of the amount with interest at the rate of 10 %  p.a. in addition to compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards  mental agony.

4.                The opp.no. 1 filed written statement and resisted the claim.  The contentions raised  by complainant are false, frivolous and fabricated to mislead the  forum by giving false picture.  There is no privity of contract between complainant and bank.  It is stated that complainant after going through all information and documents has decided  to take insurance policy and accordingly taken the same.  There is no deficiency in service and there is no cause of action to file complaint.

5.                The opp. denied that representative of bank has at any point of time induced complaint  for obtaining policy.  It is alleged that there is no any authority or power  of opp.no. 1 cancel or change mode of policy.  All other allegations regarding mental agony, harassment etc are denied.  It is submitted that complainant never opted to cancel the policy within free look period of fifteen days.  

6.                The opp. no. 1 alleged that Insurance policy was taken by complainant from Aviva  Life Insurance company and bank only acted as intermediary  for reference of  complainant  to opp. no. 2.  The investment in L.I.C. in question was speculative and is outside the scope of  consumer protection Act.1986.  It is  prayed that complaint be dismissed with cost.

7.                The opp. no. 2 Insurance company alleged that the instant  complaint is false, malicious, incorrect, malafide and is an abuse of the process of law.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed under section 26 of consumer protection Act 1986.  It is stated that contract of Insurance  attained finality as the request for cancellation of policy was made beyond free look period of 15 days.

8.                The Insurance company submitted in written argument filed on 18.4.2017  that opp.no. 2 has dispatched a cheque bearing No.464385  for an amount  of Rs. 8,06,840/-  towards the policy No.NLS 3060267  on complainant’s mailing address as submitted by him vide proposal form for said policy.  It is contended that investment made by complainant was to gain profit and for commercial purpose.  It is prayed for dismissal  of complaint with cost.

9.                We have perused policy document, statement of account, complaint copies, correspondence , and all documents.  Perused complaint, written statement, affidavit of evidence and  written argument filed on record.   Admittedly  the complainant was having saving bank account  with Indusind  bank  and said  bank acted as mediatory  for taking insurance policy of opp.no.2 by complainant.   The documents show that complainant signed on proposal form on 23.7.2011.   The policy document provide that sum assured  was Rs.1,57,50,000/- ( One crore  fifty seven lacs and fifty thousand rupees ) and premium was Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lacs ) per year  for fifteen years.

10.              The policy was having commencement date i.e. 31.7.2011 and said policy was delivered to complainant on 19.8.2011.   The amount of Rupees ten lcs was transferred by opp. no. 1 to opp.no.2 on behalf of  complainant.  The complainant has not exercised  option for change or cancellation during free look period.

11.              We have carefully examined the evidence affidavits filed by both parties.  The complainant who is retired from service stated  on affidavit that, he was led to believe that , he has to pay only one premium of  Rs.Ten lacs.   The affidavit of evidence indicate that, he met the employees  of opp. no. 1 bank which was admittedly intermediary in the taking of policy. 

12.              The evidence of  opposite party no.2 show that complainant was aware of all the facts prior to entering into Insurance contract.  On careful scrutiny of evidence,  considering  the preponderance of  probability, we  come to conclusion that, complainant relying on the assurance  of opp.no.1 entered into agreement.  He  gave consent  on the representation of opponent bank that he has to pay only ten lacs.

13.              We have perused documents filed by opp. no. 2 in support of the submissions  and found that, Insurance company failed to pay calculated as per the contentions raised by the said company within reasonable time.  It is  pertinent to note that, opp. no. 2 as mentioned  in para 17 of written argument dispatched cheque  for an amount of Rs. 8,06,840/- on 8.4.2016 , after four years which is not justifiable.

14.              Considering the fact  that now complainant is a senior citizen and he is subjected to mental agony and financial loss, due to deficient of  opposite parties, we feel it necessary to direct  opposite parties to pay reasonable compensation as per law laid down under  section 73 of Indian Contract Act 1872 for  quantification of damages.   The opp. no. 2 utilized the  amount of Rs.ten lacs from July,2011 and returned amount in 2016 after deducting  unreasonable amount.

15.              The  complainant was legally entitle to cancel the  policy as his consent was obtained by misrepresentation by the Bank, who admittedly was intermediary  and acted on behalf of  Insurance  company.  The complainant is entitle for remaining amount of  Rs.2,04,160/- with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 27.11.2012 from opp.no. 2.   The opp.no. 2 is liable  to pay compensation of  Rs.1,00,000/-  for loss of interest  on the amount paid in 2016 which was payable at the early stage.

16.              The opp. no. 1 is liable  to pay Rs.30,000/-  as compensation for mental agony for failure  to take steps  for protecting the interest of consumer i.e. complainant  at the time of taking  policy and at the time  of repeated requests made by him for cancellation of policy.

17.              In the result,we have pass the following order.

                                                  O R D E R

1.       RBT Complaint case No.519/2012   is Partly Allowed.

2.       The opp. no. 2 is directed  to pay Rs.2,04,160/-( Two lacs four thousand one hundred sixty ) with interest @ 9 % p.a. from 27.11.2012 till payment and to pay compensation of  Rs.1,00,000/- (One lac ) towards  loss of interest on the amount of Rs.8,06,840/- ( Eight lac six thousand eight hundred forty) from  date of filing  complaint  till payment in 2016.

3.       The opponent no. 1 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/-(Thirty thousand ) to complainant for mental agony for deficiency in service.

4.       Copy of this order be sent to both parties.