District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.361/2019.
Date of Institution: 22.07.2019.
Date of Order: 05.07.2022.
Anshu Suneja D/o Shri O.P.Suneja r/o H.No. 133, Sector-16, Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. IndusInd Bank Limited, SCO-10, Shopping Complex, Sector-16, Faridabad through its Branch Manager.
2. Tata AIA Insurance Company Limited, 2nd floor, Bhadana Bhawan, Neelam Bata road, NIT, Faridabad, through its Branch Manager.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
PRESENT: Sh. D,K,Gosain, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Vipin Verma alongwith Shri Rajiv Rana, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Sachin Parashar, counsel for opposite party No.2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was having Savings Account No. 100041035574 with the opposite party No.1 bank and the father of the complainant visited opposite party No.1 for getting prepared FDR in the name of Khushi Suneja daughter of the complainant and the branch manager told that he would come to the residence of the complainant and would obtain the documents for preparing FDR and also the cheque for the said purpose. In March 2018, Davesh Rajput – manager of opposite party No.1 visited the residence of the complainant alongwith his bank staff Ms. Neha and for the purpose of getting the FDR prepared in the name of Khushi Suneja age 14 years obtained a cheque for Rs.4 lakh drawn on HDFC Bank, Sector-16, Faridabad issued by the complainant form her account No. 02791000002904 from his client, the said cheque was obtained blank without mentioning the name of the bank and assured that they would fill the name of the bank and would prepare the FDR in the name of Khushi Suneja and the said FDR would be sent to the complainant in due course of time either by post or would be handed over personally. The Manager – Davesh Rajput and staff member obtained the signature of the complaint on printed blank form being the guardian of Khushi Suneja as she was minor and the FDR was to e prepared in her name. As the FDR was not received by the complainant and after waiting for about 2-3 months, complainant and her father in law visited the bank and asked the branch manager for providing the FDR of Rs.4 lakh in the name of Khushi Suneja, which was not reached the residence of the complainant, on this the branch manager of opposite party No.1 stated don’t worry for the FDR, it would be provided to the complainant and the same had already been generated in the record of the bank. The complainant in January 2019 obtained her statement of account from HDFC Bank Limited, Sector-16, Faridabad on perusal of the statement of account, it transpire that a sum of Rs.4 lakh had been debited from her account on 04.04.2018 and the said statement shown to the branch manager of opposite party No.1 by the complainant and the request was made for providing FDR, on this the branch manager of opposite party No.1 told to the complainant that he had transferred the said amount of rs.4 lakh in the fund account in place of preparing the FDR. The complainant never asked the branch manager of the opposite party No.1 to invest the said amount of Rs.4 lakh in any fund account, which act of the branch manager of opposite party No.1 amounts to cheating and fraud committed by him with the complainant. Later on the complainant was informed by the branch manager of opposite party No.1 that they had invested the amount of Rs.4 lakh received by the bank with TATA AIA Life Insurance company Limited i.e opposite party No.2 against a policy of Rs.40 lakh for a period of 10 years and the said cheque of Rs.4 lakh was used by opposite party No.1 towards the yearly premium of TATA AIA Life Insurance policy in the name of Khushi Suneja and the complainant would have to pay yearly premium of Rs.4 lakh per year for the said policy. The complainant never permitted to opposite party No.1 to invest the said amount of Rs.4 lakh for obtaining policy and never signed any document for obtaining a life policy in the name of Khushi Suneja form opposite party No.2 and further the complainant had not received any such policy from the opposite parties. The complainant was doing job and was getting salary of Rs.22,000/- per month only and how she can obtain a policy of Rs.40 lakh on a premium of Rs.4 lakh per year. The complainant had deposited some amount in his savings bank with opposite party No.1 and kept the same for the marriage of her daughter Khushi Suneja and as such asked the opposite party No.1 for getting the FDR of Rs.4 lakh prepared in the name of Khushi Suneja, so that the said amount might be utilized at the marriage of Khushi Suneja. The complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) refund a sum of Rs.4 lakh received from the complainant for the preparation of FDR in the name of Khushi Suneja and was invested with opposite party No.2 without the permission, consent and authority of the complainant.
b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs.11,000/ - as litigation expenses .
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the answering opposite party had only corporate agent of the insurance company and had only processed complainant’s application to M/s. Tata AIA Life Insurance Company for issuing the policy. Post issuance of policy, there was a separate contract between the complainant and insurance company and in case of any dispute relating to insurance policy, the complainant shall directly take up the matter with the insurance company i.e opposite party No.2 Tata AIA Insurance Company Ltd., It was further submitted that the opposite party No.2 Tata AIA Insurance Company Ltd. Had informed the answering opposite party that the policy kit pertaining to TATa AIA Life Insurance policy NO. U17921201 in the name of Khushi Suneja was dispatched on 16.04.2018 by Blue Dart/Courier (AWB 35256168275) and had been delivered to the complainant. It was further submitted that policy features/benefits were duly explained to the complainant before sale. The complainant was aware about all the terms and conditions/features/tenure of the policy over video PSC call done by Tata AIA Life insurance company. Incase the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant would have applied for cancellation of the abovementioned policy under freelook period clause with Tata AIA Life Insurance company Ltd. No cancellation request made by the complainant. It was submitted that the answering opposite party had not taken any money from the complainant for getting prepared FDR in the name of Khushi Suneja daughter of Shri Anshu Suneja at any point of time. It was further submitted that the complainant had filed the present false complaint on the basis of distorted and fabricated facts with a view to extract money from the answering opposite party illegally and unlawfuly. Opposite party No.1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant i.e. Ms. Anshu Suneja had submitted to the answering opposite party, an online proposal/application dated 31.03.2018 for the purchase of un it linked i.e Tata AIA Life Insurance Wealth Pro for her daughter i.e Ms. Khushi Suneja “life Assured” with an annual premium of Rs.4,00,000/-, premium paying term was 5 years, the policy term was also 15 years, premium frequency was annual & sum assured was Rs.40,00,000/-. The proposal was accepted on the standard rates based on the information provided by the proposer and consequently a policy was issued bearing policy NO. U179212101 dated 31.03.2018 and the same commenced on 31.03.2018. The complainant had not come to this Hon’ble Court with clean hands as all the policy documents delivered to the LA provided her a period 15 days within which she could had returned the policy to the opposite party by stating the reason thereof. Since, the said option had not been exercised by the LA/complainant/proposer within the stipulated period of 15 days, therefore, now she could not be allowed to wriggle out of the terms and conditions of the policy & to level false allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Opposite party No.2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties – IndusInd Bank Limited & anr. with the prayer to : a) refund a sum of Rs.4 lakh received from the complainant for the preparation of FDR in the name of Khushi Suneja and was invested with opposite party No.2 without the permission, consent and authority of the complainant. b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs.11,000/ - as litigation expenses .
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Anshu Suneja, Ex.C-1 – legal notice, Ex.C-2 & 3- postal receipts,, Ex.C-4 – reply to legal notice, Ex.C-5 – statement of account,, Ex.C-6 – legal notice, Ex.C-7 – Salary certificate,, Ex.C-8 – letter dated 8 May, 2019., On the other hand counsel
for the opposite party No.1 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1 , Ex.RW1/A – Shri Manoj Bhatia, Authorized Representative of IndusInd Bank Limited, Branch off. SCO-10, Sector-16, Faridabad , Ex.R-1 – reply to legal notice,Ex.R-2 – transaction details,
As per evidence of opposite party No.2 Ex. RW2/A – affidavit of Shri Harsimran Singh, Senior Manager (Legal), Tata AIA Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh,, Ex.RW2/1 – Authority letter,, Ex.RW2/2 – insurance policy, Ex.RW2/3 – amendment of application policy, Ex.RW2/5 – Customer Declaration Form, Ex.RW2/6 – Good Protects everything that’s good in life, Ex.RW/7 – photocopy of cheque amounting to Rs. 4 lakh only., Ex.RW2/8 – Mobile/Table Verification Output sheet, Ex.RW2/9 0 certificate, Ex.RW2/10 – CD.
7. In this case, complaint has been filed by the complainant with the prayer to refund a sum of Rs.4 lakh received from the complainant for the preparation of FDR in the name of Khushi Suneja and was invested with opposite party No.2 without the permission, consent and authority of the complainant. The
counsel for the complainant never permitted to opposite party No.1 to invest the said amount of Rs.4 lakh for obtaining policy and never signed any document for obtaining a life policy in the name of Khushi Suneja form opposite party No.2 and further the complainant had not received any such policy from the opposite parties. On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party No.2 argued at length and also agitated on this ground that the complainant had submitted to opposite party No.2, an online proposal/application dated 31.03.2018 for the purchase of unit linked i.e Tata AIA Life Insurance Wealth Pro for her daughter i.e Ms. Khushi Suneja “Life Assured with an annual premium of Rs.4,00,000/-, premium paying terms was 5 years, the policy term was also 15 years, premium frequency was annual & sum assured was Rs,40,00,000/-. The proposal was accepted on the standard rates based on the information provided by the proposer and consequently a policy was issued bearing policy No. U179212101 dated 31.03.2018 and the same commence don 31.03.2018.
8. After going through the evidence led by the parties and CD vide Ex.RW2/10, no doubt it was permitted by the complainant. It is the money of the complainant and he can ask for refund or surrender the same insurance policy at any time. It is evident from Mobile/Tablet Verification output sheet vide E, the policy was issued in the year 2018 and the complaint was filed by the complainant in the year 2019. The complainant will not take any type of claim or benefit of this period.
9. Keeping in view of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is disposed off with the direction to opposite parties, jointly & severally, to process the claim of the complainant. Opposite parties are also at liberty to deduct taxes, and GST & 10% of the total amount of the policy and refund rest of the amount to the complainant. The complainant cannot take any
benefits of her own wrong deeds. There are no order as to costs. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 05.07.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
