Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/281/2015

Prabh Dyal Wadhwa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Ins.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Appellant in person

11 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

First Appeal No.	:	281 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	28.10.2015
Date of Decision	:	11.12.2015

 

Prabh Dyal Wadhwa son of Shri Pyare Lal, resident of House No.1177, Phase-5, Sector 59, Mohali 160059.

…..Appellant/Complainant

V e r s u s

1. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., Branch Office 141-142, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh, through its Manager.
2. Corporate & Regd. Office: 4^th Floor, Vinay Bhavya Complex, 159-A, CST Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400098.

              ....Respondents/Opposite Parties

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.Prabh Dyal Wadhwa, appellant in person.

                    Sh.Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 21.09.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum only) vide which, it dismissed complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). At the same time, it was held by the Forum that since the case involves disputed question of facts, the complainant is at liberty to avail legal remedy before the competent Court, for redressal of his grievance.

2.           It is case of the appellant that he had purchased one insurance policy, which was one time investment for continuous three years locking period. The said policy was issued to him by the respondents, in the year 2009, on payment of premium of Rs.40,000/-. When the policy was supplied to him, on 31.03.2009, he found that few terms and conditions thereof, were different than those explained to him, by the Sales Manager of the respondents. With that policy a two-page letter dated 30.03.2009 was attached, which was never signed by him. It was a forged document. By writing letter dated 24.04.2009, matter was taken up with the respondents. An FIR was also got registered on 15.07.2009. Thereafter, officials of the respondents persuaded the appellant to continue to deposit yearly premiums of Rs.40,000/-, which he did for two years, thereafter. When after three years, as promised, amount was not returned to him with interest, he approached the Insurance Ombudsman. However, his complaint was dismissed on 06.12.2013. 
3.        It is admitted that the principal amount of Rs.1,20,000/- without interest and profits was returned to the appellant by the respondents. As such, the appellant filed complaint before the Forum.
4.        Upon notice, joint reply was filed by the respondents, wherein it was stated that the policy was a unit-linked plan, for the period of 10 years. Premium payment term was for full policy period and frequency of payment in respect thereof, was yearly basis. It is further stated that the policy was issued on 31.03.2009. The appellant did not approach the respondents for its cancellation, during the free look period. When the appellant failed to continue to make payment of yearly premium(s), his policy was put to Automatic Cover Maintenance (ACM) mode.

              After three years of issuance of policy, the appellant started making false allegations, referred to above, against the respondents. It was specifically stated that that appellant is not a consumer, as he has invested the money in a unit linked plan, for future profits. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.        In the rejoinder filed by the complainant, he reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those contained in the written version of the opposite parties.
6.        The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7.        After hearing the complainant in person, Counsel for the opposite parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.    
8.        Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
9.        We have heard the appellant, in person, Counsel for the respondents, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 
10.        It is vehemently argued by the appellant, who appeared in person, that forgery was committed with him. The policy which was issued to him by the respondents, on 31.03.2009, its terms and conditions were different than those, which were explained to him, by their Officers. He had never signed consent letter aforesaid, attached with the policy. His signatures were forged thereon. He stated that when he came to know about forgery committed, he got registered an FIR. However, on assurance given by the Officials of the respondents that his money would be returned, after three years, he paid two more yearly premiums of Rs.40,000/- each. His principal amount of Rs.1,20,000/- has been returned. However, no interest has been paid thereon.
11.        To the contrary, it was vehemently argued by Counsel for the respondents that the appellant is not a consumer, as he had invested the money for future gains, in a unit linked policy. No FIR was ever registered against any Official/Officer of the Company. The appellant had not approached the respondents, for cancellation of the policy, within free look period. After receipt of the policy, the appellant continued to make further payment of yearly premium, for two years. He prayed that the appeal be dismissed. Since the complaint involved serious issues of dispute, as such, it was rightly dismissed by the Forum, vide the impugned order.
12.        After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the appellant in person, Counsel for the respondents, and the evidence, on record, we are not inclined to set aside the order under challenge. It is case of the appellant that terms and conditions of the policy issued on 31.03.2009 were different than the one, explained to him, by an Officer of the respondents. If that was so, it was duty of the appellant, to get the Policy cancelled by making such a request, during free look period. However, it was not done. It is further case of the appellant, that a two page consent letter, attached with the policy dated 31.03.2009, was not signed by him and it was forged by somebody else. If that was so, there was no reason for the appellant not to apply for cancellation of the policy, during free look period. Rather in a very surprising manner, on some alleged oral assurance, given by the Officers of the Company, he paid two more yearly premiums of Rs.40,000/- each. This conduct of the appellant clearly demonstrates that he had virtually accepted the terms and conditions of the policy and has no grievance left against it, as alleged.

              Qua forgery of the document-consent letter, there is serious dispute on facts. It is also in dispute, whether the policy was issued for the period of three years with locking period, or it was for a period of 10 years, with yearly payment of premium. It is an admitted fact that the principal amount of Rs.1,20,000/- stood returned  to the appellant, however, without interest. In view of disputed facts, referred to above, we need not to go into question, whether the appellant is a consumer or not. The alleged disputed facts, needs recording of detailed evidence; calling of the witnesses and their examination etc. which the Consumer Foras generally avoid, as in most of the cases, proceedings before it are summary in nature.

13.        No other point, was urged, by the appellant in person and Counsel for the respondents.
14.        In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
15.        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.
16.        Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
17.        The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

11.12.2015

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 

 

Rg