Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/643/2014

Jaswinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Comapny Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Daman Dhir Adv.

09 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	643 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	10.12.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	09.06.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Jaswinder Singh, Resident of House No.75-A, Sector 51-A, Chandigarh.    

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Limited, Kotak Infinti, 7^th Floor, Zone 4, Building No.21, Infinity Park, Opposite Western Express Highway, General A.K.Vaidya Marg, Malad, Mumbai its Managing Director.

 

2]  Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Limited, Kotak Infinti, 7^th Floor, Zone 4, Building No.21, Infinity Park, Opposite Western Express Highway, General A.K.Vaidya Marg, Malad, Mumbai through its Chief Executive Officer.

 

3]  Branch Manager, Kotak Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.141-42, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

Argued by:-

            Sh.Dhaman Dhir, Counsel for the complainant.

            Sh.Mrigank Sharma, Counsel for the OPs.

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant, being allured by the assurances given by the agent of the Opposite Parties for investing the money in Investment-cum-Insurance Plan, invested Rs.1.50 lacs.  The said agent took the signatures of the complainant on blank proposal form and also took some documents.  Thereafter, the complainant was issued Insurance Policy No.02754380 (Ann.C-1).  It is averred that on receipt of the policy, the complainant observed that there was mis-match in certain columns namely annual income, family details etc., which have been filled by the agent at his own with asking the complainant.  Further, the signature of the complainant on Generic Illustration are not signed, forged, apart from showing wrong annual income.  It is also averred that the complainant visited the OPs for necessary correction in the policy, but no fruitful purpose yielded.  Ultimately, the complainant in Nov., 2013 was handed over the policies without made any changed or correction with advice to approach the Head Office, but still nothing was done.  It is pleaded that the act and conduct of the OPs made liable to be prosecuted for criminal breach of trust.  It is also pleaded that the proposal forms have been wrongly filled up by the executive of OPs without even referring to the information provided by the complainant and this all has been fabricated by the Executive for his personal financial gain. It is further pleaded that the OPs were requested to make necessary correction in the policies, which was not acceded to by the OPs.  Hence, this complaint.

 

2]       The OPs have filed joint reply and took objection to the effect that this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter pertaining to allegation of fraud, which the complainant is alleging, hence it is liable to be dismissed. 

         On merits, the Opposite Parties have admitted the issuance of policy in question as well as receipt of premium as alleged.  However, it is denied that the policy was sold by misrepresentation. It is stated that the complainant had proposed for the insurance policy by duly filling and executing a proposal form (Ann.R-1) and submitted all necessary information and as such, the policy in question was issued to the complainant. The complainant was also provided free look period of 15 days to seek cancellation of the insurance policy in case of any dissatisfaction, but no such request was made.  The complainant had only paid first premiums for the subject policy and thereafter chose not to pay the renewal premiums, hence the policy entered into lapse mode w.e.f. 24.5.2014 (Ann.R-4). Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

5]       Before going into the merits of the case, we deem it proper to deal with the objection raised by the ld.Counsel for the opposite parties to the effect that the complainant in various paras of his complaint has made allegations of forgery and fabrication against the opposite parties and representative.

 

6]       The Para No.8 & 17 of the complaint as well as of affidavit filed in support of the complaint, establishes that the complainant has made allegations of forgery and fabrication against the OPs. Hence, the objection of the OPs is held to be justified.   

 

7]       It is a settled law that where there are allegations of forgery, fraud and cheating, adjudication whereof requires elaborate evidence, the same cannot be decided by a Consumer Fora where the proceedings are essentially summary in nature. Here we are supported by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, in Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Vs. Munimahesh Patel, 2006(2) CPC 668 (SC) wherein it was held that the proceedings before the National Commission were essentially summary in nature. It was further held therein that in view of the complex factual position, the matter could not be examined by the Consumer Fora, and the appropriate Forum, was the Civil Court. In case Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. United Insurance Co.-(1998) CPJ 13, it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that when the questions of fraud and cheating are involved, in regard to the claim of the Complainant, which require thorough scrutiny, including the examination of various documents and supporting oral evidence, the Consumer Fora cannot adjudicate upon the matter.  Thus in view of the above authoritative pronouncements it is clear that complaint before this Forum is not maintainable.

 

8]       In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. Therefore, the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach appropriate Court/Agency/Authority for redressal of his grievance.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

09^th June, 2016                                         Sd/-            

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER