DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 435 of 29.10.2019

                                      Decided on:           11.1.2023

Gurwant Singh S/o S.Amar Singh r/o H.No.69, Salaria Vihar, Phase-1, Urban Estate, Patiala.                                                                                                                                                                                  …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

Kotak Mohindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., Chhoti Baradari, Patiala through its Branch Manager.                                 …………Opposite Party.

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr. S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr. G.S.Nagi,Member        

PRESENT                    Sh.Gurwant Singh, complainant in person.

                                      Sh.Pankaj Verma,counsel for OP.

 ORDER

1. The instant complaint is filed by Gurwant Singh S/o S.Amar Singh       (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Kotak Mohindra Old  Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased two insurance policies bearing Nos.01592155 and 01592164 dated 13.5.2009 and has regularly paid the premium of Rs.12,500/- continuously for three years against these two policies. However, after three years when the complainant requested for the refund of insurance policies, the OP failed to do so.
3. When query for refund was raised by the complainant, he received a telephonic call from an official of the OP and deposited Rs.15,300/- as security against which he issued cheque bearing No.51378 dated for Rs.15,300/- in favour of Kotak Mohindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., who instead of refunding the amount issued him policy No.02423257 dated 9.1.2012. Again on receipt of a telephonic call, complainant deposited cheque No.526426 dated 29.1.2013 of Rs.24,000/- in favour of the OP and again he received insurance policy bearing No.02673876 dated 6.2.2013 without his consent. Again on receipt of a telephonic call, complainant issued cheque No.0222990 dated 28.2.2013 for Rs.25,000/- in favour of the OP, who issued another policy bearing No.02702731 dated 22.3.2013 without his consent. As such the OP has forged his signature and issued him three fake policies without his consent and has played a fraud with him.
4. Further an amount of Rs.23,640/- has been debited from his saving bank account  No.0400441579 on 31.1.2014 maintained with PNB and credit was given in the account of OP under ECS against the fake policy No.02673876 dated 6.2.20213 without his knowledge and consent. Apart from that second time again an amount of Rs.24,626/- was debited from saving bank account No.10485258089 dated 5.3.2014 of SBI under ECS by Kotak Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. without his knowledge and consent.
5. Again on receipt of telephonic call from one Radhika Sharma, complainant transferred Rs.16,996/- through RTGS in favour of Sh.Anil Kumar on 20.4.2017 in the account No.27510100014087 Bank of Baroda SAA-42916683, from his OBC bank account and further  transferred Rs.23,586.36 more in account No.7714105100010181 BKID 0007714 IFSC Code No.BARBOSIRGAN Bank of India Ferozabad,  through RTGS in favor of Anil Kumar on 24.4.2017.Thereafter, again  he sent Rs.11,940.50p on 26.4.2017 in the same bank account through RTGS. That again on receipt of a telephonic call transferred Rs.34,413.70p through RTGS from UBI branch, Patiala on 14.6.2017. Despite the payment of aforesaid amounts, the OP did not refund any amount of his policies bearing Nos.01592155 and 01592164 dated 13.5.2009. Hence this complaint, with the prayer to accept the same.
6. Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed the written reply. In the preliminary objections, it is pleaded that the complainant has approached the office of Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh on 14 September,2018 where his case was  partly allowed on 4 September,2019 and ordered for refund of premium paid against policies bearing No.02673876, 02423257 and 02702731 without any deduction of charges and interest and with regard to policy bearing Nos.01592164 and 01592155, the complaint was dismissed as the complainant has already encashed the foreclosure amount as per policy contract in the year 2013 and 2015. It is further pleaded that the complainant encashed the cheque sent by the OP in compliance with order dated 20.9.2019, for refund of premium in policy bearing Nos.02673876, 02423257 and 02702731.
7.  It is averred that the complainant approached the OP for the first time in the year, 2009 and then in the year 2012 and 2013 to obtain the insurance policies, which were issued to him. The complainant retained the policies and did not raise any objections within 15 days of “Free Look Period”. Now the complainant is stopped from raising any grievances or issues relating to non-receipt of policy documents or seeking refund of the premium paid under the policy.
8. Further policies bearing Nos.02423257, 02673876 and 02702731 were dispatched to the complainant on 10.1.2012, 7.2.2013 and 23.3.2013 and it was for the complainant to pay the renewal premiums regularly in order to keep the policy in force and avail the policy benefits but due to non- payment of premiums  the said policies moved into lapsed mode w.e.f17.1.2013, 7.3.2015 and 9.4.2015 respectively. It is further submitted that the OP also wrote letter to the complainant for revival of the aforesaid policies. Foreclosure letters were also  issued to the complainant but the complainant did not adhere to the same and the aforesaid policies were terminated and foreclosed.
9. Further the OP in accordance with award dated 20^th September,2019, passed by the Hon’ble Ombudsman, Chandigarh, cancelled the policies bearing Nos.02423257,02673876 and 02702731 and refund of Rs.112566/- was made through different cheques which were encashed by the complainant  and compliance of orders issued by Ombudsman was made.It is further submitted that with regard to policy No.01592164, an amount of Rs.12563.85 was credited to the account of the complainant on 15.7.2013 and with regard to policy No.01592155 cheque amounting to Rs.12688.19 was issued in the name of complainant, which was encashed by him on 19.5.2015. There is thus no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OP has prayed  for the dismissal of the complainant.
10. In order to prove his case, complainant tendered in evidence  his self declaration,Ex.CA alongwith documents i.e. Ex.C1 copy of request for cancellation of insurance policy No.01592164, Ex.C2, copy of request for cancellation of insurance policy No.015692155, Ex.C3 copy of request for cancellation of insurance policy No.02423257, Exs.C4 and C5 copy of courier receipt alongwith copy of letter to T.S.Bijan at Hyderabad, Ex.C6 copy of request for cancellation of insurance policy No.02673876, Exs.C7 &C8  copy of courier receipt alongwith copy of letter to T.S.Bijan at Hyderabad,Ex.C9 copy of request for cancellation of insurance policy No.02702731,Ex.C10 copy of letter dated 17.1.2014, Ex.C11 copy of letter regarding wrongly debit of Rs.24626/-,ExC12 copy of letter regarding wrong way debit, Ex.C13 to Ex.C18 copies of letters to Branch Manager, Kotak Mahindra/OP,Ex.C19, copy of letter to Bruno Fernandes, Customer Care Kotak Mahindra/OP, dated 15.4.2015 alongwith postal receipt,Ex.C20, copy of PAN card, Ex.C21 copy of Aadhar card, Ex.C22 copy of SBI account statement, Ex.C23 copy of PNB account statement, Ex.C24 copy of OBC account statement, Ex.C25 copy of Union Bank of India’s account statement  and closed the evidence.
11. In rebuttal, ld. counsel for the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Aditya Singh, AVP Legal of OP alongwith documents i.e. Ex.OP1 to OP5 copies of proposal forms, Exs.OP6 to OP10 , copies of policy bonds, Exs.OP11 copy of letter dated 17.6.2012, Ex.OP12 copy of letter dated 13.2.2013, Ex.OP13 copies of letters dated 13.4.2013, 31.5.2015, 5.7.2015, Ex.OP14 copies of foreclosure intimation letters dated 13.2.2014, 1.12.2016, 3.1.2017,Ex.OP15 copy of complaint filed with Insurance Ombudsman, Ex.OP16 copy of reply filed before Ombudsman Chandigarh by the OP, Ex.OP17 copy of order passed by Hon’ble Ombudsman,Chandigarh,Ex.OP18 copy of compliance letter dated 8.11.2019 and closed the evidence.
12. We have heard the complainant, ld. counsel for the OP and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
13. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased two insurance policies bearing Nos. 01592155 and 01592164 dated 13.5.2009 for an annual premium of Rs.12,500/-each. The complainant requested OP for pre closure of the above policies on 19.6.2012 vide, Ex.C1. The complainant then issued various cheques of varying amounts in favour of the OP for which three insurance policies were issued in favour of the complainant.
14. This argument of the complainant that he was tricked by the company to issue these cheques and fake policies have been issued against these payments is not justified as the complainant is well educated person and should have been awared that for the settlement of the policies no further cheques are required to be issued and as such no payment is required to be made.
15. The complainant then transferred an amount of Rs.16,996/-on 20.4.2017 and Rs.23586/- on 24.4.2017, in the personal account of one Mr.Anil Kumar. Then another amount of Rs.11940/- was again transferred in the said account of Anil Kumar on 26.4.2017.The complainant has argued that said Anil Kumar was CA of the OP.
16. The above argument of the complainant that Anil Kumar was CA of the company has not been proved by the complainant by leading any cogent and reliable evidence. As such OPs are not responsible for any transactions made by the complainant in the personal account of said Anil Kumar. Moreover, the complainant should have been aware that the company never asked for transfer of any amount in to the personal account of any of its employee and the amount, if any, was transferred to the account of Anil Kumar, is at the sole risk of the complainant.
17. The complainant also filed a complaint, Ex.OP15, against the OPs with the office of Insurance Ombudsman. The Ld. Ombudsman vide its order dated 20.2.2019,Ex.OP17 had directed the OP to cancel the policies bearing No.0242357, 02673876 and 02702731, against which a single premium was paid by the complainant and ordered for the refund of the premium paid against these policies without any interest or deduction of any charges. Ld. Ombudsman has further held that respective fund value against policies No.01592164 &01592155 had already been paid to the complainant by the OP and requires no interference against these policies. Ld. counsel for the OP has submitted that the award granted by the Ld. Ombudsman had already been complied with vide letter, Ex.OP18.
18. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the OP is not responsible for any transactions made by the complainant with private persons and further the award granted by the Ld. Ombudsman has already been complied with. We find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs.   
19.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work, Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President