Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/750/2014

Lakhbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

24 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

 

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/750/2014
Date of Institution	:	17/11/2014
Date of Decision	:	24/07/2015

 

 

Lakhbir Singh s/o Sh. Sarwan Singh earlier r/o House #35, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh. Now resident of House # 814, First Floor, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.      Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.141-142, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

2.      Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 9^th Floor, Godrej Coliseum, behind Everard Nagar, SION (East), Mumbai-400022 through its Managing Director.

3.      Sridhar Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd., SCO 845, Level-I, Shivalik Enclave, Mani Majra, Chandigarh through its Manager.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	P.L.AHUJA	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                               

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Jaskanwarpal Singh, authorized agent of complainant.
	:	Sh. Mrigank Sharma, Counsel for OPs 1 & 2.
		Sh. Gaurav Deep Goel, Proxy counsel for Sh. Raghujeet Singh Madan, Counsel for OP-3.

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh. Lakhbir Singh, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that the agent (OP-3) of OPs 1 & 2 approached him and offered him a policy by paying single premium and assured that the returns would be 20% interest per year.  It has been averred that blank proposal form was got signed from the complainant on 29.6.2010. Accordingly, Kotak Super Advantage (Unit linked policy) No.02044362 (Annexure C-1) was issued to the complainant on 17.8.2010 and a premium of Rs.25,000/- was paid to the OPs. 

According to the complainant, OP-3 again approached him on 12.9.2011 and 31.12.2011 stating that the earlier policy had fetched a huge amount and got signed two other proposal forms from him; policy Nos.02367944 and 02441565 (Annexure C-2 and C-3 respectively) were issued to the complainant for which a premium of Rs.75,000/- and Rs.99,999/- was paid to the OPs. The complainant has contended that the said agent also sold many other policies of Birla Sun Life, Bajaj Alliance, HDFC Life, Shree Ram Life etc. and he duly gave the complaint of mis-selling and unfair trade practice regarding the signatures of the life assured, upon which they cancelled the policies as well as the agency of OP-3 and refunded the premiums back. The complainant has further contended that he gave complaints to the OPs on 16.8.2013 and 6.9.2013, but, they refused to cancel the policies and refund the amount. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2.         In their joint written statement, OPs 1 & 2 have taken a number of preliminary objections including that the complaint is barred by time; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matters pertaining to allegations of forgery and fraud. It has been admitted that the policies in question were issued by the OPs.  It has been averred that after receipt of duly filled proposal forms alongwith other requisite documents and the amount of first premium deposit, OPs had issued the subject policies.  It has further been averred that the complainant himself at clause 3 of the proposal form chose the policy term for 20, 15 and 15 years for different policies with annual frequency.  The allegations with regard to mis-selling and unfair trade practice regarding the signatures of the LI (life insured) have been denied. It has been pleaded that the contract of insurance has been entered into by both the parties through common agents and both the parties are bound by the same and no allurement or inducement had been made at the end of the OPs. It has been contended that the complainant was allowed a free look period of 15 days for seeking cancellation of the insurance policies, but, he never approached under the said free look period and, therefore, the policy terms and conditions became final and binding between the parties. It has been stated that the complainant failed to pay the renewal payment on due dates and could not keep the subject policies alive due to his own negligence resulting in foreclosure of policies bearing No.02042362 & 02367944 and policy No.02441565 is still in lapse mode w.e.f 12.1.2013. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs 1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.         In its separate written statement, OP-3 has also taken a number of preliminary objections including that the complaint is not maintainable qua it as it is only a broker and there is no privity of contract between the complainant and it; that present complaint involves complicated/ disputed questions of facts which cannot be decided in summary jurisdiction of this Forum. It has been denied that OP-3 had issued any policy to the complainant or got signed a blank proposal form from him on 17.8.2010.  It has been pleaded that the office of OP-3 transmits the leads which are generated through tele-executives and further passes the same to the sales team of OPs 1 & 2 who meet the clients and explain the plans and features and get all the documents and proposal forms duly signed by the buyer of the policy.  It has also been contended that the complainant had not lodged any protest with it. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part,
   OP-3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         In his rejoinder, the complainant has controverted the stand of the OPs and reiterated his own. It has been averred that policy booklet clearly shows that the signatures of life to be insured were forged and the occupation of the life to be insured was also not correct.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         After going through the entire evidence, written arguments of the OPs and hearing the arguments of authorized agent of the complainant and the learned counsel for the OPs, we feel that the complaint merits dismissal. 
7.         At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that firstly the complainant obtained Kotak Super Advantage Policy No.02042362 on 17.8.2010 through letter, copy of which is Annexure C-1.  Thereafter, two other policies No.02367944 and No.02441565, were received by him vide letters dated 20.9.2011 and 12.1.2012 (Annexure C-2 and C-3), but the present complaint for refund of the amount of Rs.1,99,999/- in respect of all the three policies was filed only on 17.11.2014. Section 24A(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 contains a negative legislative mandate against admission of a complaint which has been filed after two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Consumer Fora do not have the jurisdiction to entertain a consumer complaint if the same is not filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. In the instant case, since the complaint has been filed much after two years from the date of accrual of cause of action, therefore, it is barred by limitation.
8.         Secondly, a perusal of the policies sent vide letters dated 17.8.2010 (Annexure C-1), 20.9.2011 (Annexure C-2) and 12.1.2012 (Annexure C-3) show that the complainant was given a free look period of 15 days.  It was specifically mentioned in the forwarding letters that in case the complainant was not agreeable to any of the provisions stated in the policies, then he had the option of returning the policies to the OP Insurance Company stating the reasons thereof within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policies and on receipt of the letter alongwith the original policy documents, OP Insurance shall arrange to refund the premium paid after deducting proportionate risk premium, medical charges and stamp duty. In the instant case, the complainant never approached OPs 1 & 2 within the aforesaid free look period.  A perusal of the documents (at pages 79 & 83 of paperbook) produced by the complainant shows that requests for cancellation of the policies to the OPs were made by him only on 16.8.2013 and 6.9.2013. In this view of the matter, the free look period of 15 days was not availed by the complainant.  As such, the policy terms & conditions have become final and binding on the parties. Policies No.02042362 & 02367944 have been foreclosed and policy No.02441565 has lapsed, therefore, the policies are not eligible for any pay-outs. 
9.         Thirdly, the complainant has alleged in para 1 of the complaint that blank proposal form was got signed from him by the agent (OP-3) and he had offered a single premium policy and assured that the returns would be 20% interest per year. According to the letters dated 16.8.2013 and 6.9.2013 (at pages 79 & 83 of paperbook) sent by the complainant to OPs 1 & 2, the agent had signed at all the places where the signatures of Sh. Jaskanwar Pal Singh, life assured were required on his own, which amounts to cheating and forgery. The complainant has also levelled the allegations of mis-selling and unfair trade practice on the part of the agent.  It is significant to note that the copies of the policies were sent to the complainant alongwith the copies of the respective proposal forms. The complainant, who is an educated person, must have become aware that the terms of the policies were 20 years and 30 years respectively and the same were not single premium policies.  However, no objection was raised immediately after receipt of the copies of the policies and the proposal forms.  At any rate, the allegations of mis-selling of the policies, cheating and forgery by the OPs require detailed evidence, including cross examination of the witnesses. In this case, complicated questions of fact are involved, which are not adjudicable in summary jurisdiction, therefore, this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.
10.         For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.  However, it is made clear that the complainant shall be at liberty to approach the civil court or any other appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievances. 
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

		Sd/-	Sd/-
24/07/2015		[Surjeet Kaur]	[P. L. Ahuja]
hg		Member	President