Order No. 41 dt. 22/09/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant relying on the statement of o.p. nos.1 and 2 opted for a single premium policy which assured double returns of completion of 5 years. The complainant put his signature on a blank application form and paid a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- towards single premium of the TATA AIG Life Insurance Policy. The complainant did not receive the policy from o.ps. at the address where he presently resides. Subsequently the complainant discovered that 7 policies were dispatched to his permanent address where he visits occasionally. The entire exercises of o.p. was to deny the complainant to avail the free look period opportunity and as such, the complainant after coming to know of the said fact raised his objection and requested the o.ps. for cancellation of the policy, but o.ps. did not pay any heed for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the amount of rs.1,40,000/- as well as compensation of Rs.3 lakhs 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 the o.p. nos.1 and 2 stated that o.p. no.1 is an authorized broker of o.p. nos.2 and 3 and o.p. no.1 never received any monetary transaction as the complainant directly disburse payment toward o.p. nos.2 and 3. The complainant issued cheques on different dates showing that he wanted to invest in various policies not in one policy having a single premium. The complainant received the policies and during the free look period no prayer was made for cancellation of the policy, as such the claim made by the complainant cannot be entertained. On the basis of the said fact o.p. nos.1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the case.
In their w/v the o.p. nos.3 and 4 stated that the complainant approached the o.ps. and expressed his willingness to avail several policies and accordingly he applied for 8 life insurance policies for himself. The complainant filled up the application form for the said insurance policies and those were signed by him. On the basis of the responses made by the complainant the o.ps. issued policies. The original policy documents were issued and dispatched to the complainant’s mailing address as given in the application form. The complainant by his letter dt.18.3.11 lodged a complaint with o.ps. alleging various discrepancies in the said policies. The o.ps. by their letter dt.21.3.11 requested to the complainant to provide copy of identity proof and other documents. The complainant submitted a PAN Card which was not legible for which o.ps. again requested the complainant for providing the passport, PAN Card, driving license, etc. the complainant thereafter withdrew the complainant and against those polices he was fully satisfied with the terms and conditions and wanted to continue the same. The o.ps. by his letter dt.19.5.11 confirmed the said withdrawal and closed the complaint. The complainant in the mean time by a letter dt.17.5.11 revoked the letter of withdrawal of complaint. Thereafter o.ps. cancelled the 2 policies and refunded the amount of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.35,000/- respectively. The o.ps. denied that the policies were offered to the complainant for a payment of single premium and there was no question of any free foreign trip to Bangkok was offered by the agent of o.ps. the complainant did not exercise his option within the free look period. The complainant falsely made allegation that his signatures were forged. The o.ps. by a letter dt.4.11.11 informed the complainant that no discrepancy was found in the sales process of the said policies and as such, the same were not cancelled. In view of the said fact o.p. nos.3 and 4 prayed for dismissal of the case.
In spite of receipt of notice the o.p. no.5 did not contest this case by filing w/v and as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against the o.p. no.5.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant applied for obtaining one time policy from o.ps.?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of o.ps.?
- 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 relying on the statement of o.p. nos.1 and 2 and believing the same to be true opted for a single premium policy which assured double returns on completion of 5 years. The complainant insisted for a copy of the prospectus brochure of the plan he has opted for, though o.ps. promised to provide the same, but it was not provided. The complainant made to sign on single blank application form by o.p. nos.1 and 2 and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- by cheque on diverse dates towards single premium of the aforesaid policy acting under the advice of o.p. nos.1 and 2 as the complainant was not in a position to pay the sum of Rs.1,90,000/- at that material point of time. The complainant subsequently came to learn altogether 7 policies were dispatched to his permanent address where he hardly visits. After coming to know of the said fact the complainant contacted the o.p. nos.1 and 2 for cancellation of those policies, but no step was taken for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- since Rs.50,000/- was paid to the complainant on the basis of the objection raised by him. In order to fortify the claim of the complainant that the signatures on the blank appklication form was on forged, the complainant filed a petition praying for examination of his signature on those application forms by a hand writing expert and the expert submitted his report whereby the report corroborated the claim of the complainant. In view of the said fact the complainant prayed for refund of the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- along with compensation.
Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that the complainant on his own accord applied for the policies and the policies were issued to him and the address provided by the complainant was recorded in the policies and in the said address the policies were sent. The complainant did not avail of the free look period and thereby as per the IRDA rules the contract of the policy is binding upon both the parties and since the complainant did not avail of the free look period, therefore the claim made by the complainant for cancellation of the policy cannot be accepted. On the basis of the said fact o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant wanted to have policy on the basis of the assurance given by the agent of o.p. nos.1 and 2 and he gave false promises to the complainant and for that purpose the complainant only put his signature on one application form for policy with the sole object of the investment of the amount which will be one time in nature and it will become double after 5 years. On the basis of the said assurance given by the agent of o.p. nos.1 and 2 the complainant applied for the one time policy. But unfortunately the complainant had no amount at the relevant point of time with regard to the total amount to be invested by him for that purpose he issued several cheques on different dates. Taking advantage of the same o.p. nos.1 and 2 in collision with each other along with the agent converted the cheque amount by filling the forms for policy with different amount of the policy by forging the signature of the complainant. It is also found from the materials on record that the complainant during the pendency of the case filed a petition praying for comparison of his signature with the signature appearing in the application form for policies. The documents were referred to CID, West Bengal, Bhawani Bhawan, Kolkata and the hand writing expert examined the question document along with the signature of the complainant. After examination of the signature of the complainant vis-à-vis the signatures appearing on the policy application form it was opined by the hand writing expert that the signatures marked Q1 – Q42 are not genuine and they are imitation of the form of specimen signatures marked S1 and S2. On the basis of the said vital document produced by the complainant to prove his claim that the signatures appearing on the application form for subsequent policies was not of him is corroborated from the document filed by the complainant which was prepared by hand writing expert attached to CID, West Bengal. It is relevant to mention here that the polices were sent at the village address of the complainant whereby the complainant hardly visits, therefore he could not get the opportunity to pray for cancellation of the policies within the free look period. On the basis of the facts and circumstances as stated above, we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got the substance and o.p. insurance company committed unfair trade practice and the claim made by the complainant is genuine one and he will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.394/2011 is allowed contest with cost against the o.p. nos.1 to 4 and dismissed ex parte without cost against the o.p. no.5. The o.p. nos.1 to 4 are jointly and/or severally directed to refund the sum of Rs.1,40,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty thousand) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
