STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

 Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.208-209, 2nd Floor, A-Block, Sector 34, Chandigarh.

….Appellant

                                                   Versus

Kiran Verma w/o Sh.Ashok Verma, R/o House No.1482, Sector 4, Panchkula-Haryana.

                                                                                      ……Respondent

                 Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986                           against  order dated 1.02.2018 passed by District Consumer                             Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. Chandigarh in C.C.No.No.                           145/2017..

Argued by:  Mr.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.

BEFORE:       JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                       MR.DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                     Appellant/Opposite party has filed this appeal against order dated 1.02.2018, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum(II), U.T. Chandigarh (for short the Forum only),  allowing a consumer complaint filed by the respondent/complainant. 

 2.            Before the Forum, it was case of the complainant that by making misrepresentation, she was sold an insurance policy. It was her grievance that she was promised guaranteed benefit @10.75% p.a.  However, thereafter it transpired that it was not so.  By making misrepresentation, she was made to pay Rs.63,000/-. 

3.             Upon notice, reply was filed. It was stated that   the policy was issued on the basis of proposal form signed by the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant could return the policy within 15 days under the Free Look period, if she was not satisfied with its features or terms and conditions.   

4.            The Forum, on analysis of pleadings, documents on record, and arguments addressed, formed the following opinion; 

                   “The perusal of the record reveals that evidence put forth by the complainant on file is sufficient to hold that the complainant was duped of her money amounting to Rs.63,000/- by the Opposite Party.  It is evident on record that the particulars mentioned in the policy issued by the OP qua place of birth of the complainant, designation of the complainant, duration of her service, salary of the complainant, phone number of the complainant are in variance and even the name of son of the complainant has wrongly been entered in the policy details.  The complainant has also placed on record a letter addressed to the Opposite Party vide which it is disputed that the signature of the complainant has also been forged at three places in the proposal form.  Apart from that, even the name contained in the policy document is Kiran Devi whereas the complainant is Kiran Verma and the cheque NO.412119 issued is bearing the name of the complainant as Kiran Verma and even in the PAN Card it is Kiran Verma.  Moreover, the plan provided by the Opposite Party was never opted by the complainant and the plan so proposed by the complainant in the proposal form was never given to her. Further, the tenure of the policy also differs than proposed by the complainant. 

                                   Contrarily, the Opposite Party vide its reply denied any liability on its part and claimed that the policy in question has been processed through broker M/s Bajaj Capital Insurance Brokers Ltd. and it being an individual identity is responsible for all the wrong committed in the proposal form as well as with the complainant.  This stand of the Opposite Party is not tenable.  The cheque issued by the complainant for an amount of Rs.63,000/- has admittedly been credited in the account of the Opposite Party Company. The policy in question has also been issued by the Opposite Party Company, which admittedly is not in consonance with the plan proposed by the complainant and the material particulars of the complainant as mentioned in the policy are in variance with the particulars supplied by her. Therefore, the policy in question is held to be vague and invalid. Thus, the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party is writ large.”

 5.             The view taken by the Forum is perfectly justified. It was proved, as a matter of fact, that it was a case of duping a poor consumer. Many discrepancies have been indicated in the proposal form.  It is also found as a matter of fact that signatures of the complainant were forged at three places in the proposal form. It was also found that the name of the complainant mentioned in the policy was incorrect. At the time of arguments, Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for the appellants, tried to make an attempt to prove that the view taken by the Forum was not correct.  However, no contrary document is available on the file to negate the view of the Forum.

6.          For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed,  with no order as to costs. The order of the District  Forum is upheld

7.              Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

6.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.