Date of Filing : 24/06/2013

Order No.  22  dt.  19/12/2017

          The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant decided to buy a short term investment product and she was advised that Aviva New Safe Guard product would be ideal to meet her need and the said product be sold through Indus India Bank Ltd, but o.p. no.4 did not divulge that the amount of return and the amount of premium to be paid during first 3 years. At the time of selling the said product of o.p. nos.1 and 2, the o.p. no.4 supplied the proposal form consisted of only 2 pages to the complainant for her signature, but purportedly did not produce the 3^rd page of the said proposal form and any other documents containing the terms and conditions of Aviva New Safe Guard Policy. The o.p. no.4 collected the cheque on receipt of the proposal form and the premium cheque. The o.p. nos.1 and 2 through o.p. no.3 issued the first premium receipt copy. The complainant received the policy 2^nd week of April, 2010 and on receiving the said policy the complainant became astonished to know that in case of cancellation of the policy 15 days time would be given and the complainant was not informed the said fact by o.p. no.4. Since fraud was practiced by o.p. no.4 in collusion with o.p. nos.1 and 2, therefore the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to refund the amount of Rs.90,000/- along with compensation and litigation cost.

                The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. In their w/v o.p. nos.1 and 2 stated that the complainant by making a concocted story falsely made allegations against the o.ps. and the case filed by the complainant has got no substance and on that score only the case is to be dismissed. The claim made by the complainant is wholly untenable and false and in any event excessive or exaggerated and is made with only malafide intention to harass the o.ps. The complainant has simply put up a preposterous and fanciful figure total compensation for mental torture and deficiency in service. The policy holder specifically mentioned in the proposal form that he proposes to pay annual premium of Rs.90,000/- for 20 years and the policy holder after putting her signature on the policy documents made a declaration that after knowing the contents of the said application form and understanding the significance of the said product she put her signature. The policy started on and from 25.3.10 and he paid an annual premium of Rs.90,000/- till date. The status of the policy was changed to early lapse as of 25.4.11 due to non receipt of renewal premium. Further due to non receipt of premium the status was changed to early lapse surrender on 28.3.13. The policy schedule, first premium receipt and other relevant papers were sent to the policy holder on 29.3.10 which was delivered to the complainant and after receiving the same the policy holder was also provided with a right to reconsider notice wherein it was mentioned that if the policy holder did not agree with the policy terms and conditions, the policy holder had the option of cancelling the policy within 15 days (free look period) of receipt of the policy. The complainant did not take any action and after several years the complainant by making a false story filed this case against the o.ps. On the basis of the said fact o.p. nos.1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the case.

                In their w/v o.p. nos.3 and 4 stated that the complainant after going through all the papers put her signature in the application form for obtaining the policy. The story of incomplete documents has been falsely setup for the purpose of filing of this case. The o.p. nos.3 and 4 also denied that any signature was fraudulently signed on the 3^rd page and in any case o.ps. have no knowledge about the same. The levy of administration charges has been done as per the terms of the policy and only upon due satisfaction the complainant subscribed to the said policy and is now raising contrary views with an effort to unlawful gain beyond the terms of the policy. The complainant after going through the document put her signature and there was no unfair trade practice adopted by o.ps. thereby o.p. nos.3 and 4 prayed for dismissal of the case.

                On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:

1. Whether the complainant applied to o.ps. for obtaining the policy?
2. Was there any fraud practiced by o.ps. upon the complainant?               
3. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
4. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons:

                All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

                Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant decided to buy a short term investment product and she was advised that Aviva New Safe Guard product would be ideal to meet her need and the said product be sold through Indus India Bank Ltd, but o.p. no.4 did not divulge that the amount of return and the amount of premium to be paid during first 3 years. At the time of selling the said product of o.p. nos.1 and 2, the o.p. no.4 supplied the proposal form consisted of only 2 pages to the complainant for her signature, but purportedly did not produce the 3^rd page of the said proposal form and any other documents containing the terms and conditions of Aviva New Safe Guard Policy. The o.p. no.4 collected the cheque on receipt of the proposal form and the premium cheque. The o.p. nos.1 and 2 through o.p. no.3 issued the first premium receipt copy. The complainant received the policy 2^nd week of April, 2010 and on receiving the said policy the complainant became astonished to know that in case of cancellation of the policy 15 days time would be given and the complainant was not informed the said fact by o.p. no.4. Since fraud was practiced by o.p. no.4 in collusion with o.p. nos.1 and 2, therefore the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to refund the amount of Rs.90,000/- along with other reliefs.

                Ld. lawyer for the o.p. nos.1 and 2 argued that the complainant by making a concocted story falsely made allegations against the o.ps. and the case filed by the complainant has got no substance and on that score only the case is to be dismissed. The claim made by the complainant is wholly untenable and false and in any event excessive or exaggerated and is made with only malafide intention to harass the o.ps. The complainant has simply put up a preposterous and fanciful figure total compensation for mental torture and deficiency in service. The policy holder specifically mentioned in the proposal form that she proposes to pay annual premium of Rs.90,000/- for 20 years and the policy holder after putting her signature on the policy documents made a declaration that after knowing the contents of the said application form and understanding the significance of the said product she put her signature. The policy started on and from 25.3.10 and he paid an annual premium of Rs.90,000/- till date. The status of the policy was changed to early lapse as of 25.4.11 due to non receipt of renewal premium. Further due to non receipt of premium the status was changed to early lapse surrender on 28.3.13. The policy schedule, first premium receipt and other relevant papers were sent to the policy holder on 29.3.10 which was delivered to the complainant and after receiving the same the policy holder was also provided with a right to reconsider notice wherein it was mentioned that if the policy holder did not agree with the policy terms and conditions, the policy holder had the option of cancelling the policy within 15 days (free look period) of receipt of the policy. The complainant did not take any action and after several years the complainant by making a false story filed this case against the o.ps. On the basis of the said fact o.p. nos.1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the case.

                Ld. lawyer for the o.p. nos.3 and 4 argued that the complainant after going through all the papers put his signature in the application form for obtaining the policy. The story of incomplete documents has been falsely setup for the purpose of filing of this case. The o.p. nos.3 and 4 also denied that any signature was fraudulently signed on the 3^rd page and in any case o.ps. have no knowledge about the same. The levy of administration charges has been done as per the terms of the policy and only upon due satisfaction the complainant subscribed to the said policy and is now raising contrary views with an effort to unlawful gain beyond the terms of the policy. The complainant after going through the document put her signature and there was no unfair trade practice adopted by o.ps. thereby o.p. nos.3 and 4 prayed for dismissal of the case.

                Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant applied for obtaining the policy from o.p. nos.1 and 2. It is also an admitted fact that the policy was delivered to the complainant. The complainant received the policy documents on 29.3.10. At the time of receiving the policy the complainant was provided with all the relevant papers relating to the said policy. In the policy document itself it was mentioned that if the complainant would have been aggrieved with the said policy, she could have prayed for cancellation of the policy within the free look period. At the time of receiving the policy it was specifically stated that the policy would be for 20 years with the annual premium of Rs.90,000/-. It appears from the record that the complainant has alleged that her signature was obtained fraudulently in respect o 2 pages and in respect of another page he did not put her signature. In order to prove the said fact the complainant prayed for appointment of handwriting expert to verify the questioned documents with the documents with the signature of the complainant. It appears from the record that the complainant though deposited the amount for examination of the questioned documents, but the complainant was asked to remain present for providing the signature, so that those can be sent to the questioned document examiner for verification of the signature in comparison with the documents lying in the record itself i.e. the original documents though provided by o.p. insurance company for comparison of the signature of the complainant, but the complainant in spite of receiving several dates failed to appear before this Forum for which the opportunity of the complainant to put his signature for sending those signatures to the expert for examination. It appears from the record that the complainant has alleged that fraud was practiced upon the complainant, but it is the boundant duty of the complainant to prove his case that actually any fraud was committed by o.ps. or not, but the complainant failed to prove the same. Apart from the said fact the complainant had the opportunity to pray for cancellation of the policy within the free look period, but he did not avail the said opportunity. After the lapse of several years of receiving the policy the complainant by manufacturing a false case against the o.ps. alleged that fraud was practiced and also asked for compensation which are not at all acceptable. As such, we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

                Hence, ordered,

                That the CC No.386/2013 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.               

                Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.