This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

            Complainant by filing this complaint has alleged that Dr. Anuradha Das, mother of the complainant with an intention to secure the future of her daughter, decided to take a Life Insurance Policy for daughter on a yearly premium of Rs.1,60,000/- for a period of five years recoverable after a period of twenty years, with the OP1 being allured by their advertisements in newspapers, magazines and on television and also through their Sales Manager Pushpen Sarkar and agent Amit Mitra. 

            Fact remains complainant signed one blank proposal form for the said insurance policy on the request of the Sales Manager Pushpen Sarkar at her residence with the understanding that said Mr. Sarkar shall fill up the said proposal form according to the desire and directions of the complainant and her mother, because the complainant was a student and she was dependent upon her mother who is a doctor of West Bengal Health Service and on the assurance and considering the position of Mr. Pushpen Sarkar the complainant, handed over an account payee cheque bearing no.895475 dated 29-09-2011 for a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- drawn on the State Bank of India, Joramandir Branch to Mr. Amit Mitra and Mr. Pushpen Sarkar along with the signed blank proposal form and an A/c Payee cheque was drawn by the mother of the complainant and as per advertisement a gift worth Rs.18,000/- and Rs.20,000/- against the policy for such amount was also assured and such advertisement was also one of the reasons for her application.

            Subsequently, with utter surprise complainant came to know that the said Mr. Pushpen Sarkar surreptitiously with some mala fide motive and intention had split up the said proposed life insurance policy of the complainant into two policies without the knowledge and consent of the complainant and her mother.

            Moreover, the insured amount of the policy was also reduced by way of two yearly premiums of Rs.80,000/- and Rs.70,000/- totalling Rs.1,50,000/- instead of Rs.1,60,000/- keeping the complainant and her mother in the dark and further the OP has retained the excess amount of Rs.10,000/- with them.  Besides that said Mr. Sarkar willfully mis-described the complainant as a Proprietor/Computer Trading/Manager though at the time of signing the proposal form, she was a student having no income of her own.

            The complainant further submits that after funding of the above stated arbitrary, illegal interference with the intention of the complainant to have a Life Insurance Policy on yearly premium of Rs.1,60,000/- by converting it into two policies of Rs.80,000/- and Rs.70,000/- and for intentionally referred the insured as a Proprietor/Computer Trading/Manager, the complainant and her mother made several correspondences with the Grievance Cell of the OP through E-mail on several occasions and verbally over telephone and she even tried to contact the Chief Operating Officer at Bangalore but every time she was not allowed to speak to the concerned officer and Pushpen Sarkar and Amit Mitra had taken back one policy and the relevant documents from the complainant on 01-04-2011 with an undertaking the same shall be corrected and wrong entries shall be removed and they have also admitted that the fresh bond shall be issued.  After that Debal Chokroborty, Manager of ING Vysya made false promise from April-May, 2011 to quickly resolve the matter and even after prolonged persuasion by the complainant and her mother, the OP failed to submit the correct insurance policy and considering such sort of unfair trade practice and negligent manner of service complainant has been compelled to file this complaint against the OPs for redressal of their grievance along with refund of the entire amount including interest and compensation.

            On the other hand, OP Insurance Company by filing written statement submitted that, in fact, complainant submitted two proposal forms on 29-03-2011 to the OP Company proposing for “ING Market Shield Plan”, a Unit Linked Life Insurance Policy offered by the OP company.  A terms and conditions of the bond is well explained in details to the complainant and only after understanding the same in its entirety the complainant has opted the same and accordingly the OP issued two policies No.02163400 and 02163431on same date on 31-03-2011 along with terms and condition of the policies as would be found in the said agreement.  Moreover, after receipt of the said policy within freelook period complainant did not file any objection or did not pray any cancellation of the policy so it can safely be presumed that she was happy with the policies and at this juncture complainant has no legal right for cancellation of the policy as per terms and condition of the policy.  But it is specifically mentioned that no doubt a cheque of Rs.1,60,000/- was received for both the policies but after opening of two policies Rs.10,000/- was found excess and that was kept in Suspense Account which would be adjusted towards the next due premium, which was informed to the complainant.  Except this OP did not act dishonestly but they did not sell the same by misrepresentation and there is no question of giving any gift against policy and moreover the entire story as made out in the complaint is false and further complainant only for some motive and to malign the OP cooked up some false story for which the entire complaint should be dismissed.

Decision with Reasons

Practically in this case complainant challenged the signature in some letters which are referred to handwriting expert of CID and same is received by this Forum and after considering this report it is found that the CID expert has been confirmed that signatures are of the complainant Radha Anurupa Biswas but after considering the complaint and written statement and also considering the amount of cheque it is found that no doubt the agent Amit Mitra and Puspen Sarkar for opening the policy showed advertisement including computer generated advertisement to that effect that if any insure purchases such policy when premium would be more than Rs.50,000/- in that case insured shall have to get washing machine, microwave oven and no doubt that paper has been filed wherefrom it is found that gift valid for March, 2011 and in case of logins it was valid for 26^th March, 2011 and no doubt Amit Mitra, Financial Adviser of OP received the cheque being no.895475 dated 29-03-2011 of State Bank of India, Kolkata Branch, from the complainant and Amit Kumar Mitra issued the said receipt in presence of Pushpen Sarkar and Pushpen Sarkar also signed in that receipt i.e. Proposal Deposit Acknowledgement (Exhibit A-3).

            It is also found from Exhibit A-4 that Pushpen Sarkar on 01-04-2011 received back the policies expressing that the Form shall be corrected and after that bond will be changed and he has also expressed in writing by his pen and by signing in paper has admitted that same shall be corrected and again form shall be submitted on 06-04-2011 and the policy shall be changed and firstly the correct form will be submitted and after that bond will also be changed and that is the declaration of Pushpen Sarkar, Financial Advisor of the OP.  If this Exhibit A-4 is minutely taken into consideration it can safely be said that Sales Manager, Pushpen Sarkar is the preparator of the policies and complainant Radha Anurupa Biswas only signed and no doubt his mother for his future interest deposited at a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- for purchasing a policy and for getting the said gift and Pushpen Sarkar and Amit Mitra by producing that advertisement assured the complainant that those gift shall be given if at a time Rs.1,60,000/- will be paid as a premium.  OP has not denied that fact but their claim is that the said offer was valid up to 26-03-2011 but after considering the said advertisement it is found that it was for March, 2011 but in respect of logins it was valid up to 26^th March and fact remains the present cheque of Rs.1,60,000/- was encashed before 31-03-2011 and truth is that no gift was given to the complainant though complainant handed over blank form with signature as per request of Pushpen Sarkar and Amit Mitra and truth is that entire body of the application were filled up by Pushpen Sarkar and Amit Mitra in their absence and for which in the form status of the complainant is shown as Manager of Computer Trade but actually she was a student at the relevant time and her mother, a renowned doctor in the Department of Cancer and invariably she had some acquaintance with Pushpen Sarkar for which they relied upon Pushpen Sarkar and Amit Mitra.  Truth is that receipt of cheque was given by Amit Kumar Mitra and Pushpen Sarkar i.e. proposal deposit account but in proposal deposit acknowledgement for one proposal that cheque was given but fact remains two policies were prepared probably at the time of taking of signature in blank form.  Pushpen Sarkar and Amit Kumar Mitra managed to procure two signatures in two separate blank form and subsequently they converted it into two policies but it was for Rs.80,000/- and Rs.70,000/- but Rs.10,000/- was kept in their custody but that was not the contact in between the complainant and the OP which is proved beyond any manner of doubt in view of the fact Amit Mitra, Financial Advisor by his pen has noted the amount i.e. Rs.1,60,000/- has divided into two parts i.e. Rs.80,000/- each and if it is accepted then same premium amount of Rs.80,000/- for both the policies would be opened and at the same time this mandatory provision of law is that insurance company has no legal authority to receive and keep any excess amount from the customer when there is provision for given such policy in respect of the total amount but in this case one policy was issued for Rs.80,000/- another policy was issued for Rs.70,000/- and Rs.10,000/- was kept in Suspense Account but OP has failed to give any clarification for what reason another policy of Rs.80,000/- premium was not made but in place of that premium amount was shown Rs.70,000/- and Rs.10,000/- kept in Suspense Account.

            OP has tried to convince that they reported the complainant that Rs.10,000/- is kept in their Suspension Account and it shall be adjusted with future premium but in the letter there is no such whisper but only written balance amount in deposit is Rs.10,000/- vide their first premium receipt dated 31-03-2011 but they have admitted that they have received Rs.80,000/- as deposit of two proposal forms of Life Insurance it indicates that Pushpen Sarkar and Amit Kumar Mtira admittedly the Officer of the OP managed to procure the cheque of Rs.1,60,000/- from the mother of the complainant for opening one policy in view of the fact if at a time one policy would be opened in respect of Rs.1,60,000/-.  In that case complainant shall have to get gift of one washing machine and micro-wave oven and admittedly there is such offer which was valid up to March, 2011 i.e. 31-03-2011 and in this case the cheque of Rs.1,60,000/- was encashed on 30-03-2011 but policy was issued on 31-03-2011 but no gift was given.  So, invariably it is proved that complainant was misrepresented by the OPs and this OPs as officials of the OP Company adopted unfair trade practice in all respects and not only that both the proposal forms were filled up by Pushpen Sarkar and Amit Mitra in absence of the complainant.  But the mother of the complainant a renowned doctor and complainant relied upon Pushpen Sarkar and Amit Mitra but they managed to prepare two policies at their own wish and admitted fact is that on receipt of the policies forthwith the complainant and her mother went to Pushpen Sarkar for rectification and this Pushpen Sarkar is a distinguished person of OP Bank in writing handed over a slip to the complainant on 01-04-2011 expressing that firstly form shall be corrected and it shall be submitted after 06-04-2011 and after that bond will also be changed but that has not been done as yet and this Pushpen Sarkar handed over that letter in writing to the complainant on 01-04-2011.  So, it is clear that within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy document forthwith policy documents were handed over to Pushpen Sarkar for rectification Pushpen Sarkar admitted that it shall be rectified and form shall also be rectified but that has also not been done and so it is unfair trade practice adopted by their office through their officer Pushpen Sarkar or Amit Mitra though policy document was not changed by the OP, so it is proved that OP misled the complainant by assuring that gift shall be given and one time policy shall be opened but nothing was done but admitted position is that the policy was not as per consent of the complainiant or her mother which is evident from the letter of Pushpen Sarkar dated 01-04-2011 who received the policy documents and assuring that the same shall be corrected after correction of original Form which shall be submitted afresh on 06-04-2011 but that has not been done then what more is required to be proved against the misconduct of the OPs and the mis-sale of the policies to the complainant by the OPs dishonest employees and officer.

            Another factor is that admittedly proposal form was filled up by Pushpen Sarkar and Amit Kumar Mitra the officers of the OP but OP did not examine those persons before this Forum to lead any evidence to show that proposal form was not filled up by them.  Not only that OP has not denied about the letter issued by Pushpen Sarkar on 01-04-2011 to the complainant after receiving the policy documents for correction and, in fact, after that the policy document has not been returned by the OP then it is clear that OP Insurance Company is responsible for their officer, financial advisor who acted illegally and who mis-sold the same by alluring the present complainant and fact remains there was no ground to return Rs.10,000/- and there is no such letter that would adjusted with the next premium but only it is stated in their letter dated 31-03-2011 premium receipt that balance Rs.10,000/- but reason for balance amount was not mentioned so it is clear that OP adopted unfair trade practice and at the same time the financial advisor Pushpen Sarkar and Amit Kumar Mitra is distinguished person who are involved in such unfair practice for preparing proposal form and delivering money from so many policies without the consent of the insured.         

            Considering the above fact we are convinced to hold that no evidence to the contrary is led before this Forum by the OP insurance company against the allegations made by the complainant rather complainant has proved mis-sale of the present policy to the complainant, preparation of entire form by Pushpen Sarkar and Amit Mitra and another and no doubt that was done without the consent and knowledge of the complainant and lastly it is proved Pushpen Sarkar himself admitted that forms are wrongly filled up and same shall be corrected and fresh form shall be filed by 06-04-2011 and thereafter, the policy document will be corrected and fresh policy document shall be issued and though Pushpen Sarkar received back the said policy within freelook period but has not been corrected then it is clear from all angle that OP Insurance Company has been running a fake business to deceive the insured for collecting the premiums to raise their capital and to deceive the insured in so many respect by preparing some fake policies with the help of their distinguished employees like Pushpen Sarkar, Amit Mitra and another and his name is Prasanta Debnath but if actually it is found that in the scene Amit Mitra and Pushpen Sarkar were present then how Prasanta Debnath appeared in another form that means Amit Mitra and Pushpen Sarkar managed to secure signatures Radha Anurupa Biswas probably in two places and same were converted into two proposal form and in one proposal form Prasanta Debnath is Advisor and another form Amit Mitra is Advisor but preparator of all the matters was done by head brain fraud-maker Pushpen Sarkar most distinguished person in the present case and they are back behind the whole game because there are distinguished cheater Financial Advisor of the OP Company who are collecting money from the market and getting high salary or commission and present private insurance company is being run and no doubt ING Vysya is a very renowned dishonest insurance trader in West Bengal.  We have already handled in some cases of such unmerchantable company and in this case also OP has adopted unfair trade practice and that have been done with the help of their such dishonest employees Prasanta Debnath, Amit Mitra and another hierarchy Pushpen Sarkar and considering that fact we are convinced to hold that the present complainant is deceived by the OPs and proposal form was filled up by Pushpen Sarkar, Amit Mitra and Prasanta Debnath back behind the knowledge of the complainant and her mother and so relying the ruling reported in 2013(1) CPR 198 (NC) OP is responsible for the act of those persons and no doubt for which the complainant is entitled to get back the entire amount of Rs.1,60,000/- and also compensation of Rs.35,000/- from the OP for not giving the same gift.

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest with a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) against the OP Insurance Company.

            OP is hereby directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty thousand only) the premium amount which has been taken by the OP by mis-selling the said policy by alluring the insured and also for adopting unfair trade practice and deceiving the complainant in such a manner OP shall have to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/-  (Rupees Thirty Five thousand only) as compensation.

            For adopting unfair trade practice and to deceive the complainant consumer in such a manner OP shall have to pay a punitive damages of Rs.25,000/- to this Forum and this penalty imposed to check their habits of mis-selling the policy in such a fashion and to save the consumers from such sort of unmerchantable activities of the OP.

            OPs are directed to satisfy the decree within 15 (fifteen) days failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order penal interest of Rs.300/- per day shall be assessed with full satisfaction of the decree even after that if it is found that OP is reluctant to comply the order in that case penal proceeding u/s.27 of C.P. Act shall be started and for which further penalty shall be imposed.