| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR . Complaint No. 320 Instituted on: 01.08.2018 Decided on: 28.09.2023 - Sukhvir Singh aged about 49 years son of Gurbachan Singh, resident of village Sakrodi, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.
…. Complainant. Versus - Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited, Registered Office: 2nd Floor, Plot C-12, G-Block, BKC, Bandra(E), Mumbai, through its Managing Director-PIN 400050.
- Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited, SCO 1, 2nd Floor, Chhoti Baradari, Above Bank of Baroda, Patiala, through its Branch Manger- PIN-147001
- Insurance Regulatory Development Authority of India (IRDA), 3rd Floor, Parisrama Bhawan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad, through its G.M- PIN-500001.
….Opposite parties. For the complainant : Shri Udit Goyal, Adv. For the Op.1,2 : Shri Karandeep Singh Cheema, Adv.& Shri Sushil Kumar Adv. For the Op.no.3 : None. QUORUM JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT SARITA GARG : MEMEBR KANWALJEET SINGH : MEMBER ORDER KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER. - The brief facts of the case are that the present complaint is filed by complainant and he pleaded that the second week of July 2016 complainant received a telephonic call from Mr. B.K. Srivastava alleging himself as Senior Manager of HDFC Life Insurance Company Ltd. and asked the complainant that their company has launched a new FDR scheme. Under this scheme company will pay minimum return@ 24% p.a. for three years and the said amount can be withdraw at any time after 1 year. On believing assertion of the representative of the Op.1 and Op.2 obtained the signature of the complainant on blank Performa for the purpose of investment complainant paid an amount of Rs. 40,000/- to the said agent of Ops. After one month complainant again got the telephonic call from Gurdeep Singh alleging himself to be the company official and asked the complainant to make the investment in the company by saying that the said plan is going to close on 30.09.2016 and allured the complainant to make the investment in the plan. The said officials obtained the six cheques from the complainant account of different amounts for making the investment in the company and obtained the signature of Complainant. Complainant issued the cheques bearing numbers 735401 to 735405 & 735407 on different dates for a total sum of Rs. 4,26,000/- and official of ops issued the receipt of the payment. In the month of May, 2017 complainant again received a call from New Delhi by saying that the company has declared the bonus of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the investment made by him and the official of the company again visited the house of Complainant and again obtained the signature of the complainant for releasing the bonus and also obtained four cheques bearing numbers 771304 & 771305 of Rs. 99,000/- in total and another cheques number 491447 & 491448 of Rs. 90,000/-. In the month of July, 2017 complainant was shocked to receive a call from the officials of HDFC Life Insurance co. ltd. was asked to deposit the amount of Rs. 40,000/- on or before 25.7.2017. If the complainant has not deposited the amount, then the policy shall be lapsed. The official of Ops disclosed the policy number 18582404 to the complainant. Complainant did not obtained any policy and the amount has been taken on the pretext of making the FDR @ 24% p.a. and the official told that two policies have been issued from their company under which the complainant have to pay a regularly Rs. 2,00,000/- p.a. for seven years. The official also told that other receipt pertains to other insurance company i.e. Kotak Mohindra i.e. Op.1 and Op.2 Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. and Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Limited. The complainant visited the office of Kotak Mohindra at Patiala and they told to the complainant that these receipts bearing policy number 03535614 and 03535690 under which the complainant make the investments for twelve years for Rs. 1,56,000/- regularly and if the amount was not paid then these amount shall be forfeited. Complainant visited the office of Op.2. Then they disclosed to the complainant about policy number C265512993 and C2655529656 to pay 1,89,000/- premium annually for twelve years. Thereafter, complainant then visited the office of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Sangrur. After seeing the receipts, the officials disclosed, about the issuance policy number 0330253933 and policy number 0330243905. Complainant will have to deposit regular premium of Rs. 1,10,000/- annually for ten years. Complainant was shocked to know about that the officials of Ops mislead the complainant for making the investments in their company. Complainant is not in position to deposit the amount of Rs. 6,56,000/- p.a. The complainant is poor agriculturist. Complainant came to know that the agents of the Ops have played fraud with the complainant and grabbed the hard earned money of the complainant by disclosing wrong averments regarding the investments. On 22.9.2017 an amount of Rs. 54,204.77Ps was deducted from the bank account of the complainant. It is the duty of the Op.1 and Op.2 and their agents to verify the fact that the person who is getting the insurance is having sufficient income to pay a regular premium or not and in the case in hand, the premium of Rs. 6,56,000/- p.a. in all the policies are not possible for the complainant and his son. Op.1 and Op.2 have issued the policies in contravention to the rules of IRDA (OP.3) and lastly prayed the Ops may kindly be directed to release the amount of Rs. 1,56,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit of the amount till realization and Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental tension and agony and Rs. 22,000/- as litigation expenses.
- Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed joint reply by Op.1 and Op.2 and pleaded that the Op had received two duly filled and singed proposal forms alognwith other necessary documents like Aadhar Card, Matriculation Mark sheet, J- Form & PAN Card. On the basis of proposal form and declaration made there under the answering Op, considering the same to be true and correct in all aspect, issued the two policies number 03535614 Life insured Sukhvir Singh and premium paid 80,000/- policy issuance date was 20.09.2016 & other policy 03535690 Life insured Davinder Singh and premium paid 76,000/- in favour of Ops. The policy issuance date was 20.09.2016. Policy number 03535690, policy document dispatched on 21.09.2016, by speed post bill number EM967219282IN which was delivered on 28.9.2016 and another policy number 03535614 policy document dispatched on 21.09.2016, speed post bill number EM967221927IN which was delivered on 28.9.2016. For Policy number 03535614 payment was received vide cheque number 735403 and policy number 03535690 payment received vide cheque number 735404. The clause 6(2) of IRDA regulation 2002 every policy documents sent by it is accompanied by a forwarding letter which clearly mentions that in case the policy holder is not satisfied with the features or the terms and conditions of the policy. He can withdraw/return the policy within 15 days i.e. free look period. Complainant had opted for premium payment as yearly with premium payment of 12 years. There is no policy of Rs. 40,000/- with the answering Op (the same is also admitted by the complainant). The lapse letters dated 20.10.2017 were also sent by the company for both the policies. But the complainant is failed to revive the policy in question. In the complaint involve the allegations fraud, forgery, cheating and miss-selling hence the same cannot be adjudicated under the summary proceeding and can only be adjudicated in a Civil Court. Complainant has shown his income as Rs. 7,00,000/- p.a. in proposal form. Complainant submitted J-Form and bank Statement, which itself verifies his income. Insurance is a contract of utmost good faith. Hence, the allegation of complaint is no ground. Replying Ops denied all the remaining allegations in the complaint and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant be dismissed with costs.
- Reply filed by Op.3 separately and he pleaded that all the allegations are denied made in the complaint, except which are admitted specifically. The complainant's have observed inter alia the following in their complaint. Believing the false promises of Op.1 and Op.2 the complainant showed his willingness to make the investment and he was told that their local agent will come with the detailed plan to the Op.1. On believing the words of the agent of Op.1 and Op.2 the complainant made the investment in company of Op.1 and Op.2 for Rs. 40,000/-. Complainant issued the cheques bearing numbers 735401 to 735405 & 735407 of different dated for a total sum of Rs. 4,26,000/- and the above said amount were debited from the account of complainant. It is respectfully submitted that no specific reliefe is sought against the Op.3. At the outset, it is submitted that the complaint is basically between the complainant and Op.1 and Op.2 relating to cancellation of the policy sold to him by way of spurious calling and mis-selling and refund of amount paid by the complainant. Op.3 has nothing to do in the matter. Since, the onus to resolve the grievance is on the Op.1 and Op.2. The Op.3 has no role in this regard as it discharges regulatory and supervisory functions. The Op.3 lays down broad policy and does not adjudicate upon between individual policy holder and insurance company. The complainant can sue the insurance company for any deficiency in service, unfair trade practice etc. On a perusal of a complaint, it appears to be a case of spurious calling and mis-selling. Op.3 first issue a public notice dated 4.11.2010 that sum instances have been observe that general public are receiving calls from individuals who claim to be representative of IRDA. Op.3 is a regulatory body which does not involve directly or through any representative in sale of any kind of insurance or financial products and any person making any kind of transaction will be doing the same at one's own risk. Again Op.3 issues a public notice on 29.1.2016 and 15.8.2014 detailed advertisement and Informing public about the spurious calls. There is no relationship of consumer or service provider between the Op.3 and the complainant. Op.3 is statutory body set up by an act of parliament, does not charge any fee or receive any consideration for the statutory functions it renders. Therefore, the consumer protection Act is not attracted to Op.3. Op.3 neither a proper nor necessary party in these proceedings and prayed dismiss the complaint against Op.3.
- Complainant has submitted into evidence documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 and Ex.C-12 attested affidavit. Similarly, Op.&2 submitted into evidence affidavit Ex.Op.1&2/1 alongwith documents Ex.R.1 to R.9 and Similarly Op.3 has annexed annexures 1 to 11.
- We have heard the learned counsels of both the parties and gone through the record file carefully with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the parties. During arguments the contentions of the learned counsels are similar to their respective pleadings. So, there is no need to reiterate the same to avoid the repetition. Now come to major controversy, whether the complainant is liable for relief as claimed by him in his prayer or not?
- During arguments the averments of the complainant counsel are that no evidence with regard to delivery of policy documents issued by the Ops qua the complainant. Further, the issue raised by the complainant that the proposal form was not read over to the complainant. Complainant also pleaded at para number 3(b) of the complaint that the agent of the Ops obtained the signature on blank paper. Moreover, no evidence with regard to the income was placed on record by the Ops to show that the complainant was having the capacity to pay the annual premium. From the said evidence, it is clear that the alleged policy was issued by the Ops on mis representation by creating self style documents. The policy in question having annual premium of Rs. 80,000/- & Rs. 76,000/- respectively. Complainant has placed on record Bank Account Statement Ex.C-10 from 16.9.2016 to 26.9.2016 just within 9 days the amount of Rs. 4,26,000/- was grabbed. There was no occasion for proposing six insurance policies of different insurance companies. The agent of Ops in-connivance with each other got issued the policies of different companies in order to full fill their targets. No affidavit of agent produced by the Ops to prove the factum of proposing the policy by the complainant as alleged.
- It is writ large on the file that as per Ex.C-10 on 25.7.2016 a demand draft issued in favour of HDFC by complainant of Rs. 40,161/-. Complainant again on 16.09.2016 cheque no. 735404 of Rs. 76,000/- and cheque no. 735403 of Rs. 80,000/- and chequs no. 735405 dated 22.09.2016 issued to Bajaj of Rs. 55,000/-. On the same day another cheque no. 735407 dated 22.9.2016 of Rs. 55,000/- and on 26.9.2016 cheque no.735401 to HDFC Standard Life I of Rs. 80,000/- and again on 26.9.2016 HDFC Standard Life I cheque no. 735402 of Rs. 80,000/- issued by complainant . Again after 7 months and 22 days on 17.5.2017 cheque no. 71305 of Rs. 49,000/- and cheque no. 71304 of Rs. 50,000/- issued by complainant in favour of TALIC respectively. Similarly, as per Ex.C-11 complainant son on 23.5.2017 vide cheque no. 491948 of Rs. 47,000/- and cheque no. 491947 of Rs. 43,000/- issued as premium of the policy of TATA AIA as per Ex.C-9. So the total 9 policies, 10 cheques & one demand draft were issued and executed between the complainant and his sons with different insurance companies, out of which 6 policies are issued in favour of Complainant and two policies are issued in favour of complainant son Davinder Singh and one policy issued in favour of Maninder Singh Grewal S/o Sukhvir Singh(Complainant). It transpire from Ex.C-3 is first premium certificate bearing policy number 03535614 issued on 20.9.2016 in the name of policy holder i.e. complainant. It is stated that policy term was 12 years. The product name is Kotak Premier Endowment Plan and the premium is mentioned as 79,999/- similarly, as per Ex.C-4 another policy number 03535690 issued in favour of complainan's son on 20.9.2016 premium mentioned as 76,001/- policy term was 12 years, payment mode was annual. We examined the Ex.R/1 which is proposal form of complainant bearing policy number 03535614. It is specifically mentioned gross annual income of Rs. 7,00,000/-. Present Employement is mentioned as farming, mobile number mentioned as 94658-31300, Email ID is
The Policy acquires surrender value as follows : - In policies where Premium Payment Term is less than 10 years- The Policy acquires Surrender Value on Payment of full Premiums for two consecutive years.
- In Policies where premium Payment Term is greater than or equal to ten(10) years-
The Policy acquires Surrender Value after payment of full Premiums for three consecutive years. - In the present complaint complainant deposited only one premium under one policy each. So, complainant is not entitled for surrender value as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Resultantly, Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present complaint in hand we dismiss the complaint of the complainant.
- The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.
- Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
Announced. 28th September, 2023 (Kanwaljeet Singh) (Sarita Garg) (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill) Member Member President | |
