Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/1062

Rajinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Arun Abrol

05 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

(1)               First Appeal No.1062 of 2012

 

                                                          Date of Institution:13.08.2012  

                                                          Date of Decision:   05.02.2015    

 

Rajinder Kumar son of Sh.Satpal Mahajan R/o 193/21, Geeta Bhawan Road, Gurdaspur, Tehsil & District Gurdaspur.

 

                                                          …..Appellant/Complainant.

         

                                      Versus

 

1        Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., Kotak Towers, 5th       Floor, Zone II, Building No.21, Infinity Park, Off Western Express,    Highway, Goregaon Mulund Link Road, Malad East, Mumbai       4000097, through its Chief Operating Officer.

 

2        Nohit Sharma S/o Suresh Sharma R/o H.No.21, Master Colony,           Dinanagar, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.

 

3        Akhil Mahajan C/o 204, Silver Estate Colony, Verka, Bye Pass, Amritsar Tehsil and District Amritsar.

 

4        Ankush Mahajan R/o 204, Silver Estate Colony, Verka Bye Pass,        Amritsar Tehsil and District Amritsar.

 

5        Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., 2nd Floor, Near Y.P     Tower, Jail Road, Gurdaspur Through its Manager.

 

6        Kotak Mahindra, Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., Patel Chowk,    Pathankot, Tehsil and District Pathankot through its Manager

 

                                                          ….Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

         

First Appeal against order dated 12.06.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur.

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.  

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                       :         Sh. Arun Abrol, Advocate.

          For the respondents No.1,5&6   :         Sh.Mrigank Sharama, Adv

          For the respondents No.2,3&4   :         Ex-parte.

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

                                                AND

 

(2)                         First Appeal No.1063 of 2012

 

                                                          Date of Institution:13.08.2012  

                                                          Date of Decision:   05.02.2015    

 

Sat Pal Mahajan S/o Mela Ram R/o 193/21, Geeta Bhawan Road, Gurdaspur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.

                                                          …..Appellant/Complainant.

         

                                      Versus

 

1        Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., Kotak Towers, 5th       Floor, Zone II, Building No.21, Infinity Park, Off Western Express,    Highway, Goregaon Mulund Link Road, Malad East, Mumbai       4000097, through its Chief Operating Officer.

 

2        Nohit Sharma S/o Suresh Sharma R/o H.No.21, Master Colony,           Dinanagar, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.

 

3        Akhil Mahajan C/o 204, Silver Estate Colony, Verka, Bye Pass, Amritsar Tehsil and District Amritsar.

4        Ankush Mahajan R/o 204, Silver Estate Colony, Verka Bye Pass,        Amritsar Tehsil and District Amritsar.

 

5        Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., 2nd Floor, Near Y.P     Tower, Jail Road, Gurdaspur Through its Manager.

 

6        Kotak Mahindra, Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., Patel Chowk,    Pathankot, Tehsil and District Pathankot through its Manager

 

                                                          ….Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

         

First Appeal against order dated 12.06.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur.

 

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.       

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                       :         Sh. Arun Abrol, Advocate.

          For the respondents No.1,5&6   :         Sh.Mrigank Sharama, Adv

          For the respondents No.2,3&4   :         Ex-parte.

 

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                                     

          By this common order, we intend to dispose of the above referred two appeals, First Appeal No.1062 of 2012 and 1063 of 2012, as they have arisen out of the same order. Appellant of appeal No.1062 is the complainant in complaint No.496 of 2011 instituted on 17.04.2011 and the respondents of this appeal are OPs     therein, whereas the appellant of the First Appeal No.1063 is the complainant in Complaint No.497 of 2011 and respondents of the appeal are OPs therein and they be referred as such hereinafter. The order is being delivered in F.A No.1062 of 2012 and the parties would be referred by their status in that appeal.

2        The District Forum disposed of both the complaints by virtue of common order dated 12.06.2012 under challenge before this Commission in both the above-referred appeals in this case.

3        The brief facts of the complaint No.496 of 2011 filed by Rajinder Kumar complainant, giving rise to appeal no.1062 of 2012, are that he obtained two policies of Rs.2,20,000/- each bearing no.02205033 and 02204966 on the urging of OP No.2, without knowing the investment plan. The complainant had blind faith in OP No.2/Nohit Sharma and treated him like a family member and OP No.2 was working with ICICI Prudential by taking agency in the name of his sister Mamta. The OP No.2 and 3 came to the office of the complainant and OP No.3 was the Manager in the office of OP No.1 at Pathankot. They asked the complainant with regard to the plan launched by OP No.1 for 6% deduction/allocation charges for first premium and no further deduction thereafter for 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th premiums for all the five years of the plan. The complainant received policies bearing no.02205033 dated 31.01.2011 and 02204966 dated 06.01.2011 without going through the polices in good faith reposed in OP No.2. The complainant was surprised, when he received letter dated 20.07.2011 from OP No.1 in the first week of August, whereupon complainant found that monthly charges of Rs.562/- to Rs.608/- of policy no.02205033 and Rs.676/- to Rs.702/- of policy no.02204966 have been deducted by OP No.1 without the consent of the complainant. The complainant was not signatory to the above-said conditions/deductions nor he was supplied such conditions by OP No.2 and 3.  The complainant  also got policy of Rs.5,00,000/- on the urging of OP No.2 and 3, which is FDR and complainant was assured to double up this amount in five years time. When he received the statement of policies, it transpired that their deduction was 4% charges instead of 2% as assured by OP No.2 and 3 and complainant later on received letter dated 11.08.2011 from OPs regarding the deduction of monthly charges of Rs.550/- to Rs.600/- which was not disclosed by OP No.2 and 3 at the time of the policy. The complainant called upon OP no.2 with regard to these facts, whereupon he promised that he was to arrange repayment of the policy's amount along with interest to the complainant. The complainant was flabbergasted on going through photocopy of form filled by OP No.2 and 3 in his absence by obtaining the signature of the complainant on blank form, which was filled in later on by them. OP No.2 and 3 breached the trust of the complainant by not disclosing the full details of the policies and by forging signatures. The complainant never met nor saw OPs or alleged agents of the policies. The amount of Rs.65,000/- was taken from the complainant, as amount of commission by asking that they have issued different policies to different persons by giving an amount of commission, which was paid to the agent. Only amount of Rs.11,000/- was paid to the wife of the complainant and Rs.31,780.97 was credited to her account on 22.08.2011 after the birth of this dispute. OP No.2 and 3 received Rs.65,000/- from the complainant till date and wife of the complainant was never issued any policy till date nor she signed any policy of OP No.1.  The complainant served a legal notice on 12.09.2011 upon the OPs to this effect. The complainant filed the complaint that OP be directed to pay amount of Rs.4,40,000/-along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment till its realization  and Rs.1,00,000/- as damages and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for his mental harassment.

4        Notice of this complaint was served upon OPs by the District Forum OP No.2 to 6 were set exparte and defence of OP No.1 was struck of by the District Forum vide order dated 12.03.2012.

5        The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, affidavit of Rajinder Kumar Ex.C-2 and documents Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-19 before the District Forum. The District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 12.06.2012, under challenge in this appeal.

6        The short facts of Complaint No.497 of 2011 filed by Sat Pal Mahajan, Complainant against the OPs are stated as under :

          The complainant of this complaint obtained policy for Rs.5,00,000/- vide policy no.02284406 on the urging of the OP No.2 and 3 without knowing the investment plan thereof and that too in a blind faith reposed in OP No.2 and 3. OP No.2 and 3 were appointed as agent and manager respectively of OP No.1 and they came to the complainant and prevailed upon the complainant to launch plan of 2% deduction as allocation charges and thereby obtained the signature of the complainant on the said form, which was blank at that time. They assured the complainant that the policy would earn 16% to 22% as the same is FDR and amount of the complainant would be doubled within five years. The complainant received policy no.02284406 dated 18.04.2011 without going through it in blind faith reposed in OP No.2. The complainant was surprised, when he received letter dated 11.08.2011 on 30.08.2011 from OP No.1 in the month of August, wherein the statement of account up to 16.08.2011 has been mentioned and it transpired that charges of Rs.20,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- have been deducted and monthly charges of Rs.500/- to Rs.600/- of the above policies have also been deducted by OP No.1 without the knowledge of the complainant. The son of the complainant went through the conditions of the policies also called upun OP No.2  and asked about the statues of his policies. OP No.2 promised to make arrangement for repayment of the policy amount along with interest to complainant. The complainant never gave any consent for funds to OP No.2. Neither the complainant signed any such application nor he made any verbal request to OP no.2.  OP no.2 and 3 forged the signatures of the complainant and thereby breached the trust of the complainant by withholding full details of the policies. OP no.2 and 3 have also been continuing business as agent for taking agency in the name of their relative/friends like complainant by deputing them as agents. The amount of Rs.11,000/- of commission was paid to the daughter-in-law of complainant and Rs. 31,780.97 was credited to her account on 22.08.2011 after the dispute arose of this case. The OP No.2 and 3 received Rs.65,000/- from the complainant till date. The complainant served legal notice on 12.09.2011 upon OPs, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint praying that OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest @18% per annum besides amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment .

7        Notice of this complaint No.497 of 2011 was served upon OPs by the District Forum. OP No.2 to 6 was set exparte, whereas the defence of OP no.1 was struck off by the District Forum on 08.05.2012. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum dismissed the above referred complaints by virtue of common order dated 12.06.2012 under challenge in this case. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Gurdaspur, two different appeals have been filled by the each of the complainant in the above-referred complaints.

8        We have heard Ld.Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.          The point in dispute in this case is whether the complainant was taken in by the OPs and thereby made to depart his money on the above premise. We have carefully examined the evidence on the record. The submission of the complainants now appellants is that on account of blind faith reposed by them in the agent of the insurance company, they have been cheated in this regard. On the other hand,  it was argued by respondents in this appeal that there was free look period, when the policy documents were supplied to the complainant and during that 15 days period, the complainant could have opted for the cancellation of the policy, if he was dissatisfied with the same. Our attention has been drawn to Ex.C-3 on the record dated 06.01.2011, which contained the clause of free look period, which is reproduced as under :

          "in case you are not agreeable to any of the provisions stated in the     policy, then you have the option of returning the policy to us stating         the reasons thereof within 15 days from the date of the receipt of     the policy. The cancellation request should be submitted to your          nearest Kotak Life Insurance Branch or sent directly to our Head Office. On receipt of your letter along with the original policy document we shall arrange to refund the Premium paid by you after     deducting the proportionate risk premium, medical charges and       stamp duty. A policy once returned shall not be revived, reinstated          or restored at any point of time and a new proposal will have to be           made for a new policy."

10      It is, thus, evident from the perusal of the above clause of free look period in Ex.C-3, that in case the complainant is not agreeable to any of the provisions stated in the policy, he has the option of returning the policy stating the reasons thereof within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy. The cancellation request was required to be submitted to Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd  or sent directly to the Head Office, on receipt of letter being opted out of the policy, amount of premium has to be refunded. In this case, the complainant pleaded in paragraph no.3 of the complainant that he received policy on 31.01.2011 and 06.01.2011. There is no denial of the fact with regard to receipt of the policy by the complainant in the complaint. Even in the affidavit Ex.C-1 of Rajinder Kumar, complainant, he admitted the receipt of the policy dated 31.01.2011 and 06.01.2011. Similarly in the complaint filed by Sat Pal Mahajan complainant, there is averment contained in para no.3 of the complaint regarding the receipt of the insurance policy. Even from the affidavit of Sat Pal Mahajan vide Ex.C-1 in complaint No.497, it is substantiated on the record that complainant received the insurance policy. The excuse of the complainant to wriggle out of this contract of insurance is on the ground that on account of aforesaid good faith reposed by him in OP No.2, he kept the said policy without understanding the same. We are unable to agree with this contention as raised by the counsel for the appellant on this point. Once the factum of receipt of insurance policy Ex.C-3 in the above referred complaints is undisputed, therefore, the complainant in both the cases were given free look period of 15 days from the receipt of the policy to opt out of insurance policy. We do not accept the plea of the complainants that they had not been issued the terms and conditions of the policy documents. The complainants have to suffer for being remiss over this matter due to their own act and conduct. Even it is the plea of the complainants that insurance policy were sold to various persons by OP No.2 and 3 and where the agency was taken in the name of wife of the complainant, the amount of Rs.11,000/- and Rs.31,780.97 was received by the complainant and his wife being agent commission, which further makes it clear that complainant and his wife were equally indulging in this practice with same motive only to earn commission. If the complainants himself remained negligent then they cannot blame others. The complainants participated in the sale of insurance policy by taking agency in the name of the wife and duly received commission in that record, we find that the complainants are supposed to know the terms and conditions of the policy in this case, we find no substance in the submission of the appellants that they had not gone through the terms and conditions of the policy in blind faith. This plea as raised by the appellants is not accepted by us. The complainants had due option to return the policy in free look period, which was the terms and conditions  of the insurance policy. Consequently, we return the finding that the plea of the complainants being ignorant about the terms and conditions of the policy is not sustainable particularly when he and his wife remained participated in the business, for the sale of the policy towards the consumers. Order of the District Forum under appeal thus, does not suffer from any legal infirmity in our opinion in dismissing the above-referred two complaints. We hereby affirm the order of the District Forum resulting into dismissal of both the complaints.

11      As a result of our above discussion, there is no merit in the above referred first appeals and resultantly First Appeal No.1062 of 2012 titled as Rajinder Kumar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual LIV and others and First Appeal No. 1063 of 2012 titled as Sat Pal Mahajan Vs. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual LIV and others are hereby dismissed.

12      Arguments in this appeal were heard on 04.02.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.

13      The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

14      Copy of this order be placed in FA No.1063 of 2012.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                                   (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                          MEMBER

 

February,05  2015.                                                                  

(ravi)