Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central], 5th Floor ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No.- 134/2018
Sh. Ramakant Sharma s/o Late Anandi Sharma,
R/o H.No. 37/10, Gali No.7, Arya Nagar,
Delhi-110092 …Complainant
Versus
OP1: Life Insurance Corporation of India
hrough its Branch Manager, Branch Code-124,
LIC of India, Karol Bagh Branch,
Bapu Bhawan, Sat Nagar, Karol Bagh, Guru
Ravidas Marg, Satnagar (W.E.A.), Delhi-110005
OP2: Life Insurance Corporation of India
through its Branch Manager, Branch Unit no.- 11G,
Jeevan Jyoti, Brass Market, Sector-1,
Rewari (Haryana)-123401 ...Opposite Party Date of filing: 21.07.2018
Date of Order: 13.06.2023
Coram: Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Ms. Shahina, Member -Female
Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member
Inder Jeet Singh, President
ORDER
1. (Introduction to dispute of case of parties) – Complainant Sh. Ramakant Sharma purchased insurance policy from OP1 in Delhi, however, on maturity when complainant approached OP1, he shocked to learn that his policy has been transferred to the office of OP2 in Rewari/Haryana and the amount was get released by someone else personating as complainant. Whereas, the OPs opposed the complaint that amount was released to the policy holder after scrutiny of documents made available in the office of OPs.
2.1. (Case of complainant) – On 28.03.2012, the complainant purchased an insurance policy bearing no. 116998150 from OP1/ Life Insurance Corporation on 28.03.2012 against half-yearly premium of Rs. 56,447/- on terms and conditions of policy bond. The maturity date was 28.03.2018 when complainant was to be entitled for sum assured from the OP1. The complainant has been paying the premium of policy regularly and the complainant was also being contacted by representative of OP1 on telephone in respect of KYC norms. The policy was purchased through Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, agent code no. 10306124 of OP1, he had completed the formalities and paper work for the purchase of policy.
2.2. On 28.03.2018, the complainant contacted LIC agent Ashok Gupta for necessary help and it was 17.04.2018 when complainant along with Sh. Ashok Gupta went to the branch office of OP1 and met there Sh. Srikant Saini, Development Officer for encashment of matured policy amount. The complainant was provided form, which he furnished after signature and as advised complainant went to another counter with original policy bond, where it was confirmed that policy was transfer to office of OP2, however, it was apprised that policy was transferred to Rewari Branch having Branch Code 11G/OP2. The complainant enquired and asked that he never requested for transfer of his policy and it could not be without his instructions and prior intimation. Thence, Sh. Srikant Saini, Development Officer took the filled-in-form and original policy bond to look into the matter with Rewari Branch for encashment of policy.
On 20.04.2018, complainant received a call from the office of OP from contact no. 911274223576 that there is encashment of his policy. On 21.04.2018, the complainant along with LIC agent Sh. Ashok Gupta visited the office of OP, where the file was shown by the officials and it was found that forged aadhar card, forged PAN card, false FIR of loss of policy, an affidavit in the name of complainant under forged signature, a cancelled cheque of Indian Overseas Bank, Branch Tagore Park, Model Town having complainant’s name and its forged signature besides an affidavit was carrying pasted photograph of Sh. Srikant Saini, Development Officer, which was confirmed by Sh. Ashok Gupta. Moreover, an amount of Rs.6,08,355/- was transferred from the Branch of OP2 to Indian Overseas Bank through RTGS. The complainant was assured of necessary action with an advice not to make any report, lest the complainant will be in trouble.
2.3. The complainant start writing letters to the principal officers of OPs for necessary action that there was negligence and also deficiency of services for transfer of policy to the Rewari Branch, the policy amount of Rs. 6,08,355/- was permitted and released to a person not entitled therefore, that too, without fulfilling necessary formalities and proper paper work. The complainant also lodged report with SHO P.S. Anand Vihar, Delhi, which was registered as DD no. 84B dated 23.04.2018, however, there was no help by the OPs for getting back his hard earned money, wrongful loss suffered by the complainant.
The OP should have been informed telephonically or through SMS but it was also not done. The officials of OP did not verify the signature and photograph affixed on forged documents which were used for transfer of policy and encashment. The complainant was contacted by the OP1 for KYC purposes but they failed to inform the complainant about forged and fabricated transfer application. That is why the complaint for necessary directions to the OPs to release amount of Rs. 6,08,355/-, being maturity amount of the subject policy interest at the rate of 18% from the date of maturity till the amount is paid, compensation for Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony caused to the complainant and cost of Rs. 11,000/-.
2.4. The complaint is accompanied with the record narrated in the body of complaint. It is relevant to mention here that initially the complainant was filed against OP1, however, the complainant was permitted to implead OP2 by order dated 25.09.2018 and thence notices on complaint were sent to both OP1 and OP2.
3. (Case of OPs)- The OPs opposed the complaint by filing a compact written statement/ reply in the form of preliminary objections and para-wise reply. The complaint is not maintainable being without cause of action, complainant came before the Forum without clean hands and suppressing the material facts. The complaint is pre-mature since the police is investigating the case and investigation is yet to be concluded. Moreover, OPs have conducted an inquiry in respect of payment of LIC policy through RTGS, it is discovered that account was in the name of Ramakant Sharma at Indian Overseas Bank, Tagore Park, Model Town, Delhi, policy was transferred from Karol Bagh Branch to Rewari Branch. There is no deficiency of services on the part of OPs.
An amount of Rs. 6,08,355/- was transferred in that account for which detail was furnished but the police is still investigating and it has not been ascertained whether the amount was received by the complainant, that is why complainant was requested to cooperate with the OPs as police is investigating the matter. Consequently, for want of any deficiency of services the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. (Replication of complainant) – The complainant filed detailed replication and he denies allegations of written statement that neither any fact or material fact was concealed, there exists cause of action in his favour and against the OPs since policy was transferred from Delhi Branch to Rewari Branch without his consent and instructions, later the amount was released on forged and fabricated documents. It is not a premature complaint as complainant was to be released the amount immediately on maturity. The complaint is correct.
5. (Evidence)- Complainant Sh. Ramakant Sharma filed his affidavit of evidence on the lines of complaint. On the other side, OP filed affidavit of Ms. Deepa Sinha, Manager L&HPF, LIC/ Manager Legal. Then evidence was closed.
6.1 (Final hearing)- The complainant filed brief written submissions by analyzing the facts and evidence, followed by additional submissions after the written submissions of OPs as OP had filed its written arguments, apart from opinion of hand writing expert. Then it was followed by oral submission by Sh. Amit Tripathi, Advocate for complainant.
6.2. Similarly, OPs also filed their written submissions besides hand writing expert opinion. Then it was supplemented orally by Sh. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for OP.
6.3. The contentions are not being repeated here, they will be referred appropriately.
7.1 (Findings)- The contentions of both the sides are considered, keeping in view the material on record, either in the form of oral narration and documentary record, that too, in the light of ratio of case law relied upon.
Before proceeding further, it is necessary to decide the legal issue. Ld. Counsel for OPs request that this case involves scrutiny of evidence deeply that too cross examination of witnesses, therefore, this complaint cannot be determined under the summary procedure under the Consumer Protection Act but by the Civil Court. It is opposed by the complainant that in order to delay disposal of complaint, all of a sudden this issue is raised. Otherwise, all material is available on the record, majority of the evidence in the form of documents and it can be decided by the present Commission, it does not require adjudication by Civil Court.
The rival contentions are considered and record is seen, it is first time the OPs have taken an objection that subject matter is to be adjudicated by the Civil Court; neither in the written statement nor in the evidence nor in written arguments ever since it was so stated. When the case was at the stage of oral argument then this objection was raised. Otherwise, the material on record can be considered by this Commission and it does not involve any issue which may warrant adjudication by Civil Court. Therefore, it is held that the consumer Commission is competent to adjudicate the issue involved in this case.
7.2. It is manifest that there is no dispute of obtaining the policy by the complainant from OP1, payment of all premiums throughout as well as the date of maturity of policy.
However, the dispute arose when complainant went to the office of OP1 for necessary formalities for release of the maturity amount but he was told that the policy was transferred to the office of OP2 as well as the amount was released from that office. According to complainant, he had not applied for transfer of his policy from Karol Bagh Branch to Rewari Haryana Branch nor he had furnished any documents in the office of OP2 for release of amount but furnishing of forged document and release of amount was already over after maturity date of policy complainant had approached in the office of OP1 with original policy bond and other papers.
On the other side, the case of OPs is that the amount was released after due process on receipt of documents, which were also got examined subsequently from the hand writing expert, who examined the question documents furnished for releasing the amount as well as other admitted document/signature of the complainant; then he formed an opinion that the questioned documents (on the basis of which amount was released) were bearing signature of complainant. There was no negligence or deficiency of services on the part of OP. By analyzing these contentions of the parties, the following conclusions are drawn:-
(i) There are two components, firstly, incident in the office of OP1 prior to transfer of insurance policy to the office of OP2 and other incident is of release of amount by the office of OP2;
(ii) There is no record filed and proved by the OPs that there was request of complainant for transfer of its policy from the office of OP1 to the office of OP2. It establishes the case of complainant that he never requested or written for transfer of his policy to the office of OP2;
(iii) The OPs have not provided any document of written application bearing signature of complainant to the hand writing expert to the appropriate opinion .
(iv) The transfer of policy from the office of OP1 to OP2 was without the instructions and request of complainant; the complainant was not informed of transfer of his policy to the office of OP2 being without his consent. It amounts to deficiency of services on the part of OPs.
(v) Whenever, policy matures, it is general practice that insurer sends notice of maturity along with prescribed forms and discharged voucher so that the insured may do appropriate compliances. This practice is not in dispute as emerged during arguments.
However, the OPs have not proved any record or letter that the complainant was sent any such notice of intimation or application or discharge voucher to the complainant.
(vi) Before the amount is released, the insurer takes back original policy bond along with other declarations while releasing the amount. However, it is an undisputed fact throughout in the pleading that OP2 had released the amount without original policy.
Moreover, paragraph 4 and 6 of complaint the complainant has specifically pleaded that after maturity date, he alongwith LIC agent furnished claim form with original policy bond to Shri Srikant Saini the office of OP1 and in written statement to these paragraphs OPs states that it is matter of record and it has not been denied. It means and also proves that after the policy was transferred to the office of OP2 , the policy amount was released without original policy bond.
(vii) It relevant to note, that ordinarily if one wants to change the branch, it would be either because of residence or office reasons, however, in the indemnity bond took by the OP2, there is same address of Delhi mentioned as in the original policy. It infers that why one will get the branch changed to Rewari, Haryana from LIC Branch at Karol Bagh Delhi, where premium was paid through-out.
(viii) The OPs rely upon the opinion of hand writing expert that the record (considered for releasing insurance amount) was bearing signatures of complainant. The complainant opposes it and he also relies upon S. Gopal Reddy vs State of A.P. 1996 4 SCC 596 that evidence of an expert is a rather weak type of evidence and court do not generally consider it as conclusive proof. The complainant further refers case law in the additional argument, some of the case law is on criminal trial cases, therefore, it does not require to mention all of them here.
However, the reasons of OPs are misplaced firstly the hand writing Expert was not provided nor examined original record of signatures but all of them are photocopies. Secondly, all questioned signatures are in a rectangle, it was not explained in the report. Thirdly, the report was filed all of sudden by getting examined the specimen and the evidence of expert was not filed, just report is filed. Fourthly, the complainant has been prosecuting the complaint from 2018 and opinion tendered is of 03.02.2020 but no request was made either by OP1 nor by Expert to Commission for permission to obtain admitted signature of complainant in person nor the complainant was requested to give his specimen for examination of his signature nor the signatures of complainant on record of complaint were taken, despite the same could be relevant. Consequently, the report is incomplete. Thus incomplete report of Expert filed would not help the OPs.
(ix) The investigation of police on the case/ matter may result into its outcome of chart sheet or otherwise, however, the process of this complaint cannot be halted, since under the consumer law the remedy of complaint is in addition to and not in derogation of other law in force, therefore, the OPs will not drive any benefit in case the investigation still pending. Moreover, the complainant cannot be put to infinite wait of that investigation. Consequently, it can be concluded that the complaint is not a pre-mature.
(x) The OPs also took time to file report regarding inquiry being conducted in the Office, however, till date no inquiry report is filed.
(xi) The conclusion drawn hereinabove concludes that insurance policy of complainant was transferred from the office of OP1 to office of OP2 not only without instruction and request of complainant but also without his consent, that too, without verifying the record.
(xii) Further OP2 released the amount without sending any information or intimation or maturity of policy and release the amount without original policy bond, since original policy bond was produced by the complainant on the date of maturity but till then the policy was already transferred and amount was released. The complainant had not executed any document for release of amount but the amount has been released to some one else.
Police had registered the case and also investigation was being done, but it is never the case of either OPs or of any fact by the police through OPs that it was the complainant who is behind getting transfer the policy from branch at Karol Bagh, Delhi to Rewari, Haryana. Simultaneously, it also infers that someone is in confidence to have access to record of complainant that policy was firstly get transferred from Delhi to Rewari Branch and then amount was got released. Moreover, the amount was transferred by the office of OP2 into an account through RTGS, that account does not belong to the complainant.
7.3. In view of the conclusion drawn, it stands established by the complainant that he had not applied for transfer of his insurance policy from Delhi branch to Branh at Rewari, Haryana but his policy was transferred there without his request and consent . In addition OPs have released the maturity amount so some other person without any intimation to the complainant of maturity of the policy as well as in the without securing original documents, especially policy bond. The OPs released the amount to some person other than complainant, under such circumstances it is not only deficiency of services but also gross negligence on the part of OPs, especially for KYC persons the complainant was being verified from time to time but no so while transferring the policy or releasing the maturity amount. The complainant suffered his insurance amount an also all kind of trauma by running pillar to post to secure his hard earned money. The complainant has proved his case against OPs of deficiency of service and negligence.
7.4. It is constraint to mention that OPs contends that an internal/in-house inquiry is being done, however, the matter pertains to the year 2018. Moreover, in this complaint, adjournment were given to file the report qua in house inquiry being done, however, no such report was filed by OPs.
7.5 Therefore, complainant is held entitled for release of his insurance policy amount of Rs. 6,08,355/- which was payable on maturity by the OPs. The complainant has sought interest @ 18% pa from the date of maturity, however, considering facts & features of case as well as he was deprived of his valid matured claim, interest @ 9% pa would be justified for both ends, interest will be from the date of complaint till realisation of amount against the OPs.
7.6. The complainant has also sought compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards harassment and mental agony; considering totality these circumstances including the breach of confidence of complaint, harassment, mental agony; the damages are quantified as Rs 15,000/- apart from cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/-in favour of complainant and against the OPs.
The peculiar facts & features of this case also warrant to impose punitive damages of Rs.10,000/- against OPs, so that such things does not happen against and option is also left with OPs that punitive damage may be recovered from defaulting officials as per norms.
7.7. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed in favour of complainant and against the OPs to pay jointly and/or severally assured amount of Rs. 6,08,355/- along-with simple interest @ 9% pa from the date of complaint till realization of amount; apart from to pay damages of Rs.15,000/-, punitive damages of Rs.10,000/- & costs of Rs.10,000/- to complainant.
OPs are also directed to pay the amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. In case amount is not paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of order, the interest rate will be 10% per annum on amount of Rs. 6,08,355/-.
8: Announced on this 13th June 2023 [ज्येष्ठ 23, साका 1945]. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for necessary compliance.
[Vyas Muni Rai] [ Shahina] [Inder Jeet Singh]
Member Member (Female) President
