Order-15.
Date-17/07/2015.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant sometime in the month of January, 2014 received one telephone call from an unknown person introducing himself to be an Advisor of HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. and the said Advisor tried to convince the complainant about various benefits of taking policy from HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. which were not available in other Life Insurance Companies and complainant told to the advisor that he was not interested in taking any policy and not to disturb him but the said advisor after sometime again started calling the complainant over telephone and tried to assure the benefits available under HDFC Life Classic Assure Plus Policy. The complainant is a Junior Advocate and it was not within his means to make investment for purchasing the policy but in spite of refusal to purchase policy the said advisor repeatedly contacted the complainant though he had expressed in clear words that he was not interested to purchase any policy. Thereafter, said advisor of the insurance company sought for an appointment to make the complainant aware and understand the benefits available under the policy. Though the complainant tried to dissuade the said advisor but this time he could not avoid the Advisor. Thereafter, the advisor of the insurance company visited the complainant and tried to assure that the policy under HDFC Life Classic Assure Plus will be beneficial to the complainant considering the future prospect of the Junior Advocate and it was specifically told by the insurance advisor that for the said policy only one time investment was required to be made and the complainant will have no further headache, but complainant expressed his inability to take the policy by investing such huge amount but insurance advisor did not give up and kept nagging the complainant to take the policy. Thereafter the advisor visited the residence of the complainant and convinced the father of the complainant about the various benefits available under HDFC Life Classic Assure Plus Policy. Complainant’s father was impressed because according to the insurance advisor it was one time investment and no further premium was required to be paid under the said policy. Accordingly, complainant’s father paid the sum of Rs.49,999/- towards premium vide cheque no.457004 dated 08-02-2014 drawn on UBI, Dum Dum in favour of HDFC Standard Life Insurance co. Ltd. and the complainant was asked to sign a printed form and the complainant on good faith as per the instructions of the insurance advisor put his signature on the said form. Complainant’s father requested the insurance advisor to let him go through the printed form but the insurance advisor assured that the terms and conditions explained by her were printed and there was no necessity to go through the voluminous papers. So, the complainant and his father were assured by the insurance advisor that with a very short period the policy bond will be issued by the company. Sometime in the last part of February, 2014 the policy bond was received by the complainant’s mother and at that time complainant was not in his residence due to his illness, he was suffering from viral hepatitis and had gone to his maternal uncle’s house for proper treatment where he was under treatment of Dr. Debashis Ray from 23-02-2014 to 03-04-2014. After the improvement of health condition complainant returned to his residence on last week of March, 2014 i.e. on 29-03-2014 and after returning to his residence, his mother handed over the policy bond bearing no.16662666 and to his utter surprise and dismay found that the signature of the complainant was not genuine, the terms and conditions stipulated in the policy bond did not tally with the policy conditions narrated to him and his father by the insurance advisor and it is found from the policy bond that the policy period is 10 years commencing from 19-02-2014 and the premium paying term is 7 years at the rateRs.48,501/- and the mode of payment is annually. The complainant was further shocked to find that the sum assured under the policy is Rs.2,35,776/- whereas the total premium payable for 7 years is Rs.3,39,507/-. So, complainant found that he has been completely misled by the insurance company and on perusal of the policy it was found that even the telephone numbers of the complainant were wrongly noted by the Insurance advisor for confirmation of the policy and the signature is forged.
After considering the policy complainant through e-mail dated 05-04-2014 intimated the Branch Manager of OP3 and also made representation in writing to the Branch Manager of the OP3 about that and that OP3 Branch Manager assured that the matter shall be communicated to the higher officials and asked the complainant to keep in touch and further assumed his grievance will certainly be settled and asked him to make representation in writing was made by the complainant. Accordingly after that complainant received one letter dated 09-05-2014 from the customer service department of HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. stating that they were unable to refund the premium amount because the cancellation request was not received within the free look period and complainant was advised to continue with the policy without taking any action regarding the complaint made by the complainant. Fact remains insurance advisor mislead the complainant and sold the policy stating that it was one time premium payment and complainant on good faith purchased the same but truth is that everything was done by the insurance advisory by misleading the complainant and practically blank spaces in the printed form was filed up by the insurance advisor according to her choice and complainant became the victim of the circumstances and in the above circumstances complainant wrote a letter on 28-07-2014 complainant sent a letter to the OP1 through his Ld. Advocate for redressal of his genuine grievance requesting the insurance company to cancel the policy and to return the premium amount of Rs.49,999/- but insurance failed to give any reply. So, in the above circumstances, complainant filed this complaint praying for refund and compensation etc. for the immoral act of the OPs.
On the other hand, OP by filing written statement submitted that on receipt of duly filled up and signed proposal form along with premium cheque from the complainant the OP duly issued a policy bearing No.16662666 and the complainant also signed the illustration document which clearly states the working benefits, term and type of policy. The said policy was for a term of 10 years with an annual premium of Rs.48,501/- payable for 7 years and the assured sum was of Rs.2,35,776/- and complainant is well aware of the fact and thereafter, there is an option for return of the policy within free look period as per the IRDA’s Guidelines, and the allegation as made by the complainant is completely false and the allegation raised regarding forgery of signature and mis-sale of the policy is incorrect. Further no request for return of the subject policy was made within free look period for which as per policy condition complainant is not entitled to get any relief and when the said policy already became lapse for which complainant is not entitled to any benefit and the entire allegation is false and for which the present complaint should be dismissed.
Decision with Reasons
On proper consideration of the complaint and the written version and also considering the entire materials on record it is found that it is the allegation of the complainant against the OP regarding mis-sale of the product that is HDFC Life Classic Assure Plus Policy. Fact remains that complainant never went to the OP’s office for any purpose and complainant was never examined by the OP about willingness of the complainant to purchase such a policy for continuous 10 years and on payment of 7 times consecutive years premium payment of Rs.48,501/-. It is clear that OP’s Ld. Lawyer has tried to convince that the form was signed by the complainant himself then complainant cannot anyone deviate from acceptance of all the terms and condition. But after considering the entire application form i.e. the proposal form of Traditional Single Life Insurance it is clear that the entire form was filled up by the Branch Manager of the OP himself and it is also proved that the complainant’s signature was collected from the company advisor from the house of the complainant. Thereafter, it was filled up by the Branch Manager and no part of the application was filled up by the complainant. Truth is that complainant is a junior Advocate but that is not sufficient defy the testimony of the complainant on the ground that the HDFC Life Insurance Company in most of the cases deceived the customer in such a manner and practically their agents are most dishonest agent who are in the market and who are deceiving the customer in such a manner and that is not the single case, many cases have been allowed on that ground. This company including some other companies like SUNLIFE, RELIANCE, BAJAJ ALLIANZ, ROYAL SUNDARAM etc. have spread their dishonest agent and advisors for the purpose of collecting one premium and that is their only business but not to determine whether so called insured have or had their capacity to pay the same for years together and in such a fashion this mal-practices are being practiced by all the insurance companies and it is another example of deceiving the complainant. Truth is that complainant forthwith after recovery of his illness reported the matter to the insurance company but ultimately insurance company refused to refund it as it was filed after free look period but truth is that after recovery of his illness and in the meantime one year did not passed then invariably complainant is not willing to accept such policy when he was assured that it was a policy for one-time payment of premium then invariably it was the duty of the insurance company to return as per IRDA’s guideline when the policy did not cross one year and question of lapse of the policy does not arise and in view of the fact we are convinced to hold that the OP ought to have refund the sum deducting 5 percent as service charge but it is mentioned in this regard that insurance company agent must have to submit first one declaration form about the total affairs of the policy which is going to be purchased by the customer that consent letter is not filed by OP and at the same time OPs have failed to prove how in the proposal form phone number of other person were included because it is the duty of the insurance company after receipt of the application along with cheque to check up the matter whether the customer is willing to purchase the policy according to his financial capacity and for that purpose insurance company always shall have to talk with the customer over phone for which the phone number was included but in this case OP never stated that they talked with the complainant over phone and thereafter confirmed. So, it is clear that insurance advisor or agents falsely included the phone number, so that OP Company again anyway cannot talk with the actual intended policy purchaser if actually OP wishes to talk with the complainant in that case complainant must have to say for what purpose he purchased the policy and whether he willingly put his signature or what type of policy he wanted to purchase. In this regard OP only received it through their dishonest agent, broker and it is their business anyhow to collect the premium and to raise their capital and not to refund money and that is the common practice of the insurance company all over India, particularly in Bengal their present business is completely a deceitful manner of business but there is no control over them even in such a manner HDFC, Reliance, Bajaj Allianz, Sunlife, Royal Sundaram continue their business. So, this Forum can say without any hesitation that their business is parallal to the business of Sarada Gosthi. All the private insurance company must have to show before the forum that consent letter was signed before execution of any proposal form for purchasing the policy. Another factor is that complainant did not issue the cheque and there was a receipt attached with the form but in the said form there is no signature of complainant and customer acknowledgement slip is also blank and there is no signature then it is clear that complainant never went to OP’s office. Everything was done by their dishonest agent and financial advisor and fact remains complainant never received any receipt in support of payment of any cheque, customer acknowledgement receipt is also blank. So, it is clear that complainant was not aware of the fact what type of item was sold by the OP through their dishonest agent. Invariably we shall have to rely upon the evidence of the complainant considering the blank customers acknowledgement in support of payment of cheque. Not only that the entire receipt as processed by the OP is also blank and there is no signature of the complainant as depositor or as customer in support of receipt of the said customer acknowledgement. So, it is clear that dishonest agent cum financial advisor of the OP managed to procure the signature of the complainant only in the application form and prepared this application form as per their wish and Branch Manager of the OP who is one of the perpetrator of the entire game.
Considering all the above facts and circumstances, we are convinced to hold that complainant intended to purchase one time premium payment policy and OP’s dishonest financial agent assured it and also it is proved that complainant did not go to purchase it but his father was also assured by the agent of the OP for which his father issued the cheque for which in the receipt it is noted by the Branch Manager – love and affection cheque was issued by father but peculiar factor is that in that receipt invariably at the time of receiving the cheque the agent or the dishonest financial advisor must have to secure the signature of the complainant or his father so it is proved from the said receipt that complainant never issued any cheque but the dishonest broker and or financial advisor managed to procure the cheque from the father of the complainant so, all the above circumstances perforced compelled us to come to a conclusion that this present sale was mis-sale and complainant was misguided by the OP’s dishonest agent, financial advisor, including Branch Manager and they are involved in this case and for which we are convinced to hold that by that proposal form no valid contract was executed by the complainant for mis-selling and false representation. OP’s Manager managed to procure the same for which invariably such a policy should be treated as a cancelled policy and for which OPs are legally bound to refund after deducting 5 percent as service charge but same is deducted as per IRDA’s Guideline. Accordingly, complainant has proved the allegation against the OPs and no doubt OPs are bound to refund the same after deducting 5 percent as service charge and also for mental pain and sufferings and for further adopting unfair practice in selling such a policy through their agent and broker OP shall have to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost. Further shall have to pay penal damages to the extent of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is allowed on contest with a cost of Rs.5,000/- against the OPs.
OPs are directed jointly and severally to refund Rs.49,999/- after deducting 5 percent as service charge to the complainant treating the said policy as cancelled from its inception further for causing mental pain and agony and for adopting unfair trade practice and for mis-selling the product by their agent OPs shall have to pay penal damages to the extent of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant and entire decretal amount shall be paid by the OP within one month from the date of this order failing which OP shall have to pay penal interest at the rateRs.100/- till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected it shall be deposited to this Forum. Even if it is found OPs are reluctant to comply this order in that case penal proceeding u/s.27 of the C.P. Act shall be started against them for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed.
