ORDER

Per:Md. Shamim Akhtar (Member)

Dated-07.02.2024

1.              The appellant who was complainant in complaint no. 20 of 2013 has filed the instant appeal against the order dated 29.09.2015 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Muzaffarpur in the aforesaid complaint no.21 of 2013 by which the said complaint was dismissed.

2.               The case of the Appellant/ Complainant in brief as made out in the petition of complaint is that she is a consumer having purchased Insurance policy from TATA AIG life Insurance Co. Ltd. and the Opposite party no.1 to 3 are the officials of the same company having changed the name of the company as TATA AIA life Insurance Co. Ltd and Opposite party no.4 is  the agent of the company. Further case is that on being approached the complainant agreed to purchase two policy from the said company and the complainant agreed and gave his signatures on the forms and also handed four cheques having no. 484622 dated-18.12.2009, 304289141 dated-30.12.2009, 424525 dated-26.02.2010, 40429143 dated-11.05.2010 for Rs.50,000/- , Rs.30,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively and when the complainant did not receive any policy documents, she wrote to the opposite party no.2 on 10.04.2010, 19.11.2010, 11.08.2010 and on16.03.2011 but no reply and thereafter the complainant approached the local police and the opposite party no.3 gave some torn pages of the policy document and the policy nos. were U010382556, 40084,2098,4060453176 & 4043312797 and on 04.01.2012 she wrote to the company for duplicate policy bond and the same was given on 02.03.2012. Further case is that the complainant found that on the duplicate policy bond her signature is forged and mobile number of a different person is printed thereon and her profession & PAN is also wrong and the complainant approached the local branch Office and requested for cancellation of policy and wrote to opposite party no.2 on 17.03.2012  but no reply was given and a legal notice was sent on 06.05.2012 which was replied on 31.07.2012 and the company denied to cancel the policies. The complainant also wrote to Insurance ombudsman, Kolkata  on 19.10.2012 and again on 16.11.2012 but no action was taken. According to the complainant in the aforesaid circumstances the company is liable for deficiency in service, since, the complainant has invested in company policy believing good service but the company knowingly kept mum and did not reply complainant letter and despite his allegation of forgery of her signature the company did not bother to enquire into by any expert and hushed up the matter at its  own level. Further case is that the complainant has been put to financial loss on account of the payment of premium for policies which are liable to be cancelled and the complainant is entitled for refund of  the premium amount of Rs.2,80,000/- with other monetary reliefs.    

3.            The Opposite party no.1 to 3 appeared and filed their written statement  in which they denied  and disputed the claim of the complainant.

                After hearing both the sides the complaint was dismissed by the impugned order.

4.            The grounds of appeal as raised by the Appellant/Complainant is that the impugned order is bad in law as well as on facts and has been passed on conjecture and surmises and thus liable to be set aside. Further ground is that the impugned judgment has been passed upon wrong appreciation of fact and evidence and the Learned Court ought to have given findings upon this fact that the appellant has filed copy of letter and receipt sent to the company about the non receipt of the policy document but none of  letters replied by the company. Further ground is that the Learned Forum ought to have considered that despite the request of policy document on 02.02.2012 the duplicate policy document was handed over to the complainant on 02.03.2012 which is beyond 10 days mandatory period. It is also the ground that the Learned Forum committed a wrong by holding that it has to decide forgery by alleging forgery of signature the complainant has complained that her allegation is not attended by company thus a deficiency in service. It also the ground that the Learned Court ought to have considered that the complainant has complained/sought cancellation of policy upon receipt of policy and it is admitted that for the first time policy papers (Duplicate) came in the hand of  the complainant on 02.03.2012 and within 15 days. On 17.03.2012 he sought cancellation which is quite within time and the duplicate policy which showed  the wrong entries were shown to the forum but the forum refused to accept on records. The duplicate policy  and it can be produced before this Hon’ble Commission. In the circumstances prayer is made to set aside the impugned order.

5.                    The respondent no.1 to 3 have appeared but they have not filed their written notes of argument  on the day of hearing of this appeal the appellant remained absent. However appellant has filed the written notes of argument. Learned Counsel Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh on behalf of the respondent was present for hearing.    

6.                    We have heard the Learned counsel for the respondent and also considered written notes of argument filed by the appellants. Also perused the records including the impugned order.

7.                    From the pleadings of the parties the purchase of  the policies by the Appellant/complainant is admitted. In the impugned order the Learned District Forum has held that considering the facts, circumstances, materials available with the record as well as allegation of the complainant it is clear that the case of the complainant is lodged as forgery in his policy application and hence if any forgery as alleged by the complainant appeared before him, he can take it to adjudicate it from the court of competent jurisdiction and this forum has no right to adjudicate alleged forgery and to declare  the policy as void. In the impugned order it is also held that after careful scrutiny they do not find any discrepancy arises on the part of opposite party rather the complainant himself has defaulted in payment of installment after purchase of the policy. In the impugned order it is also held that there is no any terms and condition appeared in favour of the complainant for her policy to return the first instalment in case of default  of two instalments.

8.       From the pleading of appellant/ complainant made in the complaint it appears that he has alleged forgery by the Respondent/ Opposite parties. We have also gone through the written statement filed by the opposite parties before the District Forum, a copy of which has also been annexed with the ‘Memo of Appeal’. Thus from the pleadings of parties we find that the present case is not a simple case of deficiency in service and involves determination of complex questions of facts and law which cannot be satisfactorily determined by a redressal agency under the Consumer Protection Act. It would be better for the complainant to seek redressal of his grievances in a Civil Court, if so advised. The impugned order is not interfered  with and the appeal is dismissed, accordingly. No costs.   

9.          A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as mandated by the C.P. Act 2019 and also to be sent to the learned District Commission by way of proper mode of service. Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the State Commission.

10.         Let the file be consigned in the record room along with copy of this order.

(Md. Shamim Akhtar)                                  (Ram Prawesh Das)                                           (S. Kumar, J)

    Judicial Member                                               Member                                                             President                          

Mukund