Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant took a life Insurance Policy from op no.2 vide Policy No. 14379595 on 03.05.2011 named HDFC SL CREST Policy and the said policy was assured for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs for a period of 10 years carrying a premium of Rs. 50,000/- p.a. and said policy was purchased after careful consideration and consultation with the relationship manager of the op no.2 namely Bidhayak Chakraborty.

          But complainant further stated that however within few days from the date of purchase of the insurance policy being No. 14379595 the complainant started receiving various life insurance policies from the op no.2 carrying different premium and assured value.  However the complainant never filled any form for the insurance of the said insurance policies nor did the complainant have any conversation with Bidhayak Chakraborty nor with the op no.4 whose name was mentioned as the agent in the said policies having code No. 00291843 and License No. C43637 and practically complainant received several policies with premium within the range of Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/-.

          But fact remains that complainant never applied for the above said policies except one as mentioned but it was somehow managed to prepare by the ops taking some simplicity of the complainant the poor lady having no such capacity to pay huge amount as premium payment of Rs. 5,75,000/- per year for seven policies.  When complainant observed all those matters,she approached the op no.2 and explained it to Bidhayak Chakraborty who in return assured the complainant that the same might had been issued wrongly and therefore he further assured that the same will be cancelled in few days.  However after few days the complainant came to know that Bidhayak Chakraborty had resigned from his position from op. 

          Complainant therefore immediately approached to op no.2 the grievance cell and filed the complaint on 17.01.2013 with the same request to cancel all the policies which were issued in the name of the complainant without her consent, signature or knowledge or intimation however nothing was done by the op.  Thereafter complainant sent the notice and brought the matter to CA&FBP that the complainant’s grievance was addressed by the op no.6 in the month of December 2012/January 2013 who advised him to send a letter to the op no.2 along with the copy of the policies for cancellation of the same however since all those policies were lapsed in the meantime, therefore op no.6 advised the complainant to purchase the fresh Insurance Policies of Rs. 2.05 lakhs in order to avail of the maximum benefits along with higher rate of interest from the said policies and further in order to get the entire cancellation amount of the previous policies accordingly complainant purchased 4 new insurance policies on payment.  However complainant did not get the same benefit which has been cancelled and in fact complainant lost an amount of Rs. 7.80 lakhs in the entire process due tomis-selling and false promises and they misled the complainant so complainant tried to settle the issue with the ops through e-mails and telephone however the ops failed to reply and in the above circumstances, for negligent and deficient and deceitful manner of service on the part of the op and for ops refusal to refund the same the complainant has prayed for redressal as a poor lady being a poor typist-cum-clerk of a very small firm having her poor income.

          On the other hand op nos. 1, 2, 3 & 7 by filing this written statement submitted that after understanding and being satisfied with the material matter in respect of opening the policy complainant admitted that she availed of one policy which is HDFC SL CREST Policy bearing Policy No. 14379595 dated 03.05.2011 and yearly premium was Rs. 50,000/-.  Thereafter complainant approached the op no.1 on several occasion till December – 2011 and applied for further seven policies as per understanding terms and conditions paid initial premium for which same was issued and complainant signed all documents which clearly stated that the working benefits, term and type of policy that complainant realized the same and signed it and also signed illustration documents which clearly states that she purchased the policies with full knowledge.

          Thereafter complainant again purchased 4 HDFC SL Classic Assure policies knowing fully well the benefit and she received all the documents and out of that policies bearing Nos. 15791036, 16171751 and 16269373 were continued.  But other policies became lapsed.

          It is further submitted for the first time by her email dated 12.11.2013 raised allegations for mis-sale of policies bearing Nos. 14519839, 14591850, 14675150, 14713913, 14780887, 14784502, 14801692, 15753335, 15791036, 16171751 and 14713916.  The answering ops by reply through email dated 26.11.2013 called upon the complainant to confirm the places of signature mismatch etc.  It was further informed by the answering ops that upon conducting an internal assessment, the allegations of mis-sale of policies was found to be incorrect.  As such the cancellation request of the complainant could not be processed.  It is further submitted that complainant again wrote a letter dated 29.11.2013 which was duly replied by an email on 10.12.2013 by the op and it is mentioned that complainant availed of all the policies after understanding with the terms and conditions and within free look period no cancellation was made.  So, under any circumstances all allegations cannot be entertained and it is false and fabricated for which the complaint should be dismissed and fact remains that op denied all the allegations and having also stated that Bidhayak Chakraborty never assured the complainant that the policies were wrongly issued and will be cancelled in future days and further submitted that the entire allegations are vexatious and for which the complaint should be dismissed and there was no negligence and deficiency on the part of the op and op never deceived the complainant.

          But other ops did not file any written statement and did not appear though notices were duly served upon them.

Decision with reasons

          Before entering into the merit of this case it is our bounden duty to ventilate the details of the policies in respect of which the present consumer dispute is arisen and in this regard as per complaint, it is found that it is undisputed fact that complainant purchased one policy – 1) Policy No. 14379595 dated 03.05.2011 HDFC SL CREST policy.  But the details of the disputed policies are as followed –

          Truth is that in respect of the first policy there is no dispute.  But regarding other policies that is disputed policies we shall have to consider certain fact when the Ld. Lawyer for the op submitted that they have filed all disputed original policies along with papers.  No doubt they have submitted the same and from those policies it is clear that income of the policy holder is one of the vital fact because insurance company shall be satisfied about the financial capacity of the insured regarding his/her capacity to pay the premium yearly.

          In this regard after consulting the disputed policy papers it is found source of income yearly of complainant is shown somewhere Rs. 16 lakhs, somewhere Rs. 10 lakhs, somewhere Rs. 7 lakhs, somewhere not mentioned, somewhere Rs. 5 lakhs etc.  In fact the total yearly premium installment of the disputed policies is found Rs. 7,50,000/-  per year.  But truth is that complainant is a very poor and simple clerk-cum-typist of a very small private company and her yearly income in total is within the range of Rs. 3 to 3.5 lakhs as an employee of the said company named Cummins India Pvt. Ltd. and considering that fact, it is clear that complainant is a poor clerk-cum-typist of a very small company namely Cummins India Pvt. Ltd. and her yearly income is within the range of 3 to 3.5 lakhs.  Then it is to be considered that whether such a lady can pay any premium for the above disputed policies to the extent of Rs. 7,50,000/- per year out of her yearly income of Rs. 3 to 3.5 lakhs.

          Another factor is that in most of the application form her total income is shown Rs. 10 lakhs, Rs. 7 lakhs and sometime Rs. 5 lakhs.  Truth is that in all the application forms her PAN Card No. SEJPR 1514 M is noted and no doubt she is paying very small income tax and that is varying from Rs. 26,086/- to Rs. 48,041/- and this is the status of the complainant against whom the op has stated that she purchased all the policies knowing fully well all the terms and conditions and having her capacity to pay yearly premium about Rs. 7,50,000/-.  If we consider the above fact it can safely be said not even an idiot in the society can notbelieve that the lady having her income within the range of Rs. 3 to 3.5 lakhs per year after maintaining her family she has her capacity to pay Rs. 7,50,000/- per year against those policies and it has created much doubt about the whole conduct of the agents or officers of the ops about selling of those policies to the complainant.  Most probably the senior most I.A.S. officer is not in a position to pay Rs. 7 to 8 lakhs per year as premium in insurance policy.  But the poor typist-cum-clerk purchased the said policies is claimed by the op that she realized and knowing fully well purchased it otherwise but it is evident from all the original papers that only signatures in some forms were taken by that agent Bidhayak Chakraborty but his status has not been denied by the op. 

          But might be considering the simplicity and age of the complainant somehow or otherwise by using some sweet words and pleasant words ops’ agent and officers managed to collect the money giving such chance to believe that she shall have to get huge money within short period and thereafter that Bidhayak Chakraborty admittedly the officer of the op created such policies.

          In fact all the private insurance companies in India including HDFC, ICICI Prudential, Max Life, Sun Life, Kodak Mahindra and others have adopted such policy some were unscrupulous persons engaged to deceive the lady staff all over India.  In this case no doubt having no such financial capacity to pay Rs. 7,50,000/- per year as premium, the complainant purchased so many policies cannot be believed by this Forum, not even any prudent and reasonable man and not even any judicial or non judicial officers shall believe it.

          Truth is that complainant has no capacity to pay Rs. 7,50,000/- out of her total income of Rs. 3 to 3.5 lakhs per year.  Then after considering the proposal forms which are submitted by the ops in which the signature of the complainant is there,we are confirmed that in at a time some blank proposal formssignatures were taken by Bidhayak Chakraborty and time to time, he collected some money and managed to convert it a policy.

          Fact remains all the policies have already lapsed and complainant for the first time in total paid rupees more than Rs. 7.80 lakhs that means that amount was not deposited from his yearly income.  But the complainant submitted that before this Forum that she at a time to withdraw some Provident Fund amount which was handed over to the op’s officer Bidhayak Chakraborty as he assured that after purchase of one policy that amount shall be deposited in fixed deposit and it shall be converted to huge amount within a few years.

          Considering her retirement knocking at the door and relying upon the version of the Bidhayak Chakraborty, complainant handed over it to that family as she relied her because she had some previous acquaintance with that fellow.   No doubt this fact as stated by the complainant in open Forum cannot be disbelieved in view of the fact.  Such a lady being a poor clerk-cum-typist has some knowledge as she maintains her family that it is impossible for her to pay Rs. 7,50,000/- per year as premium for disputed policies when her retirement is knocking at her door.

          Truth is that in the meantime this complainant retired from her service.  Then it is clear how such a lady without her sufficient yearly income shall have to continue policies and that Bidhayak Chakraborty was a family friend of complainant.  So, her entire family used to believe him and on good faith she signed in blank papers as produced by Bidhayak Chakraborty but no columns was filled up by her, no income statement was submitted by her.  But everything was done by that fellow and he managed to prepare all those documents without consent of the complainant.

          When the particular fact is that total payment of premium to the extent of Rs. 7,50,000/- cannot be paid by such a lady against eleven insurance policies what is material fact but Ld. Lawyer for the op only submitted that it is impossible to show whether the complainant has her capacity to pay or not but when she purchased the same and same are valid policies.

          Considering the original application forms as submitted by the op, it is clear that all the blank form somehow or otherwise Bidhayak Chakraborty managed to procure the signatures.  Thereafter it was converted as policies.  Further it is found from the policies and formats that same were filled up by B.D.M. or C.A.M. of the company.  But in all the forms there is no photo of the complainant.  But it is noted with existing.

          So, considering all the above application forms, it is found that in some cases particularly in respect of application form filled up by Sarita Ghosh, the consultant signature as noted as Maythili Roy is not the signature of the complainant.  Because the signature of the complainant is very much matured signature.  But whatever it may be all the policies have already lapsed for non payment of subsequent premiums.  Then as per IRDA guideline of the year 2010-2012, the op must have to return the respective premium amount treating it as lapsed policy after deducting 5 percent as service charge because as per principle of law the insurance company cannot grab the insurance premium amount to create their capital and as per Insurance Act, premium is not the investment but for the purpose of her security of life as insured and when the policy is found lapsed and discontinued for discontinuation of further payment of premium by the insured the life insurance coverage is closed against the policy holder and in that case as per IRDA guideline of the year 2010-2012 if any insured prays for return of the said amount in that case insurance company is legally bound to refund it after deducting 5 percent as service charge but not more than that.

          Considering the entire materials and after hearing the Ld. Lawyers we find that Bidhayak Chakraborty is a family friend of the complainant somehow he managed to procure signatures from the complainant and at a time collectedRs. 5 lakhs for depositing the same in an account for getting monthly interest but that has been converted into policies after policies by that Bidhayak Chakraborty with the help of the staff of the op.

          Most interesting factor is that about Bidhayak Chakraborty and his relation with op has not been denied by the op.  if any prudent and reasonable person considers the documents as filed by the op and also the poor financial income of the complainant and her present status as retired staff of a small private company, such prudent and reasonable man cannot believe that those policies were not purchased by the complainant knowing fully well about her liability in the future for 10 years.  But anyhow this lady was deceived by Bidhayak Chakraborty as because this lady and their family members used to rely upon that fellow and practically complainant handed over the entire amount of Rs. 5 lakhs initially for depositing the same in a fixed deposit and Bidhayak Chakraborty assured her that one policy must be purchased at first and accordingly she purchased one policy.  But balance amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was not used in such a manner by the fellow Bidhayak Chakraborty who has already resigned from the office of the op and considering the ops’ written version and the facts we are convinced to hold that they have nothing to say about the conduct of Bidhayak Chakraborty, now the ex-employee of the op. But admitted position is that Bidhayak Chakraborty was in service of the op at the relevant time and it is also proved that the complainant had no intention to purchase so many insurance policies.  At the same time it is proved that when complainant found that about 7 to 8 insurance policies were issued timely complainant submitted complaint and for cancellation of the same when other two employees of the op either agent or consultant assured her that if she purchases further three policies in that case complainant shall have to get back the previous amount.  But in that case also the complainant was deceived and no doubt this is the unfair trade practice of the private insurance companies.

          Fact remains very recent in this year Jean Tirelo who received Nobel Prize in his research work already confirmed that insurance company and banking authority are deceiving the poorer section of people in different manner by adopting different procedure and same should be handled with toughest hand and insurance company and banking authorities must have to control otherwise the people at large shall be deceived that theorization has been adopted by different countries and Japan, Franch and other countries have controlled the over act of the insurance companies and banking authorities.  On study of the said theorization we have gathered that the same procedure has been adopted by the op and by adopting such procedure, complainant was deceived by Biadhyak Chakraborty now ex-employee of the op and other employees who are in service that is other ops.

          Fact remains the income of the insured must be considered by the insurance company before accepting the policy and it must be looked into that whether a person has his capacity to pay such premium or not and his/her yearly income and previous and present income of complainant and after retirement is very poor for payment of total yearly premium of Rs. 7,50,000/- when after retirement her present income is within the range of Rs. 2 lakhs and previously when she was in service her yearly income was Rs. 3 to 3.5 lakhs that means complainant’s financial capacity is/was never up to the mark to pay Rs. 7,50,000/- per year as premium and that is sufficient to hold that some sort of mal practices were adopted by Bidhayak Chakraborty and other staff I.e. Sarita Ghosh, etc. only to deceive the complainant in any manner and to create their number of policies and to collect first premium and to create the capital and no doubt in the meantime all the policies have lapsed due to non payment of subsequent premium,  then as per IRDA guideline 2010 and 2012 ops are bound to refund that amount when as per ops, the policies have lapsed then it is their bounden duty on the part of the op to refund the same by deducting 5 percent service charge at once.

          Truth is that as per financial policy of the Central Government that is the Finance (Insurance) premium cannot be treated as investment if this life of the insured is not even covered, that means after lapse of the policy, the premium shall be returned to the insured after deduction 5 percent service charge when the life is not insured.  But truth is that all over India private insurance companies have been holding huge amount of lapsed premium as their capital and investing and getting profit, but insured is not getting back that amount without any interest.  Practically for lack of implementation of the C.P. Act 1986 by the Fora, the insurance companies are increasing their capital day to day and holding huge capital in their fund without disbursing the lapsed insurance policies fund to the insured and in fact it is being caused only for unawareness of the consumer in the society.  Lack of education of the consumers and particularly no revolt or movement is still organized by the consumer organization in India.  But in Europe, consumer organizations are revolting against any sort of exploitation made by insurance company or bank and there is history of a bank of AmericaConsumer organization for adopting unfair trade practice by the bank closed the bank.

          Fact remains that Forum has been passing judgement but are not reading or studying the consumer economics, consumerism or any other aspect sociological aspect, psychological or moral aspect and financial aspect and trade industrial aspect in India after globalization and implementation of FDI.  But we are anxious about when consumer movement shall be properly organized and this private insurance company or bank shall be properly treated when Fora  has no capacity to protect the interest of the consumer then there is no other alternative but to revolt by the consumer all over India under the banner of the consumer organization or under the banner of CA & FBP but all are found silent spectator in the present case also through it is no doubt exceptional case where it is found that a poor complainant was deceived by the men of the ops and her all policies are and total lapsed amount is 7,80,000/- lapsed at a time what she withdrew from her GPF  and handed over toBidhayak Chakraborty for fixing the fixed deposit. 

          Now the ops are trying to convince that there are documents.  But truth is that documents are filled up by the ops’ staff.  In some cases signatures were there but some are being collected in the same manner and that is unfair practice of the op insurance company who are selling the insurance policies and no doubt in this case it is proved beyond any manner of doubt that everything was done by Bidhayak Chakraborty taking such good family relationship with the complainant and her family and practically she was deceived by the ops in all respect and now this complainant has faced a wretched financial condition as she has been deceived in all respect by the ops.

          Consideringall the above fact and rules and negligence we are convinced to hold that the ops have their no right to forfeit the entire amount under any circumstances when insurance company has proved that policies have already lapsed so life of insured not insured and as per provision of IRDA of 2010 and 2012, op is bound to refund the total premium amount against those policies stand in the name of the complainant after deducting 5 percent as service charge and at the same time it is proved that ops have denied to refund it for which they took a defence that within 15 days that was not cancelled.  But fact remains that such a clause is not always mandatory when in the present case the entire policy has been declared lapsed as it is not being confirmed.  Then as per law and as per guideline of IRDA, the ops are bound to refund that amount.  But even then knowing fully well of IRDA guidelines ops have not refunded it for which the complainant appeared before this Forum for redressal.

          Fact remains that ops have tried to make this lady a starving lady and throw her into the dustbin after grabbingRs. 7.8 lakhs.  Now the question is what will be the fate of the lady in her family and how long she shall have to starve for the negative attitude of the ops and in fact for negative attitude of the ops, complainant was forced to appear before this Forum to get the relief and relief must be granted and in this case different type of bad procedure had been adopted by the op to utilize of good amount of the complainant in such a manner back behind the knowledge of the complainant and practically the procedure as adopted by the ops is no doubt unfair trade practice.  Such ops must be imposed penalty also for adopting unfair trade practice to stop such sort of activities of the ops and to protect the interest of the consumers at large and penal damages should be imposed so that they must have to rectify in future and show their social and moral values in their insurance service.

          In reality C.P. Act 1986 was passed with huge expectation that Fora shall have to protect the interest of the consumers.  But truth is that Fora has been passing order but not considering and protecting the interest of the consumers and to ensure that no way the consumers must be exploited.  But expectation is everywhere but Fora is found working casually having no desire to implement it in true sense the spirit of the act.  If Fora is found very much bold having teeth in that case such sort of activities of the insurance companies or bank authorities or the traders would be checked.  But in realityin India even after enactment of C.P. Act 1986, the condition of the consumer is very poor and wretched and they are not properly protected and only the consumer who are appearing before this Forum for redressal are also not getting redress properly and even a meagre amount of award which is not paid by any traders or by the bank or LIC even Fora is passing order to pay the same without interest, without any compensation, without any cost.  But provisions are there but Fora is found not in a position to impose penalty, not even toimpose compensation for the benefit and protection of the consumers and this is the order of the day.  Though the intention of the legislation is to give social effect of the Act 1986 for the benefit and welfare of the consumer and to effectively carry out the spirit of the act but in reality no impact has been created in the society or in the minds of the traders and service providers that they must have to rectify themselves and they shall have to save the consumers interest.  No doubt this complaint is a glaring instance to show the left thumb to the Fora particularly by HDFC, ICICI, Sun Life, Reliance, Max Life etc. who are deceiving the consumers at random.  Fora is here and there but Consumer Protection Act (book) is at almirah who has no teeth to control their activities.  The object and reasons for enactment of the C.P. Act is going to be frustrated if Fora cannot implement the spirit of act in true sense and cannot save the interest of the consumer in true sense and cannot give social justice to the consumers. 

          After studying yearly filing of the case and disposal of the case in West Bengal, we are very much shocked in view of the fact that in West Bengal 10 crores of people live and they are all consumers.  But only 8,000 to 8500 cases are being filed in total including State Commission.  Then it is clear that traders, service providers are more powerful than that of the consumers and this case is an example to believe this that C.P. Act 1986 has failed to give any social protection to the 10 crores of people as consumer in West Bengal though the machinery is being run but effective result is zero when percentage of filing of the case is negligible against ten crores of citizen of West Bengal.

          In the light of the above observation, we are convinced to hold that due to lack of dynamic efficiency of the machineries of the C.P. Act 1986, several mal practices are being implemented by the service provider, traders, financial institutions, bank and LIC to deceive the consumers and in the present case, the complainant has been deceived by the op which is proved and no doubt complainant has been harassed by the op beyond any manner of doubt.

          In the light of the above observation it is found that there is good and sufficient ground to allow this complaint to implement dynamic efficacy of the C.P. Act 1986 to protect the interest of such helpless consumers and to create such efficiency in the society that for the benefit of the consumers the C.P. Act 1986 was established but not it was established only for giving relief to the service provider or traders or financers or bankers or the insurance companies.  But fact remains they are more powerful in the upper level and truth is that ops in all cases are showing their thumb to the Fora because they were monied men and can spend huge money to fight up to higher Fora to get relief.  This is not the expression of this Forum but it is the expression of the poor consumer who have failed to form a good organization to fight against such exploiters but still waiting for controlling the exploiters (traders/service providers) by Fora machineries.

          So, in the present case negligence and deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opsare proved.

          Hence, it is

ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the ops with cost of Rs. 10,000/- and same is allowed exparte against the other ops with cost of Rs. 10,000/-

          Ops are jointly and severally hereby directed to refund the entire premium amount against the above policies as mentioned in the body of the complaint to the complainant i.e. total Rs. 7,80,000/- after deducting 5 percent as service charge and balance total shall be paid to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which for non payment of the same within stipulated period, complainant shall have to get further interest over the said amount interest at the rate  8 percent p.a on expiry stipulated period.

          For harassing the complainant and for causing mental pain and agony and also for deficiency and negligent manner of service on the part of the op and also for adopting unfair trade practice ops jointly and severally shall have to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant as compensation and it must be paid to the complainant within one month.

          For adopting unfair trade practice and to check such sort of mal practice as adopted by the ops and for protection all the consumers in future from the hands of such ops, ops are imposed penal damages to Rs. 25,000/- which shall be paid to this Forum’s account within one month.

          If ops jointly and severally fail to comply the order within the stipulated period, in that case, for non compliance of the Forum’s order and for disobeyance of Forum’s order penal interest at the rate  Rs. 500/- per day shall be assessed till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected, same shall be deposited to the Forum’s account.  Even if it is found that ops are unwilling to comply the order in that case penal procedure u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 shall be started for which they shall have to pay further fine and further penal action must be started against them.