This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainants by filing this complaint has submitted that Complainant No.1 a retired teacher and now solely house wife and Complainant No.2 is the daughter of the complainant no.1 and is recently married and OP4 being an Agent of OPs 1,2 and 3 who approached the complainant no.1 at Bankura for making one time premium policy under the OPs1,2 and 3 and also mentioned no need to give any further instalment and also mentioned that the principle amount would be returned back after three years with interest and being impressed by the OP4’s best assurance the complainant no.1 on good faith handed over two cheques of City Bank, Chowranghee Branch, Kolkata for Rs.4 lakhs on 27-06-2012, one of Rs.3 lakhs vide cheque no.582817 and another of Rs.1 lakh vide cheque no.582818 for two policies and on delivery of those cheques the OP4 took signatures in two policy forms without filling up the proposed forms or columns and assured to fill up by the OP4 and same shall be presented before the insurance company for processing policy and it is specifically mentioned by the OP4 that there was no need for any appearance of the complainants for medical check up and complainant did not sign any medical declaration nor to produce any income source or anything to be submitted along with the said proposal. 

Subsequently complainant did not receive any policy till August, 2012 and, as such, complainant informed to the OP4 regarding the policies and OP4 intimated the numbers of three policies and as per his advice the complainant no.1 sent one E-mail to MAX Life Insurance Customer Service and in reply from the MAX Life Insurance Co. the complainants came to know that the complainant No.1 made two policies in her name vide policy no.864542907 and 857597389 and ticket nos. 9420855 and 9420862 respectively and policy No.857592836 and ticket no.9420845 in the name of her daughter i.e. complainant no.2.

In fact, OP2 took signatures in two policy forms signed by the complainant no.1 and the complainant no.2 did not sign in any document regarding any policy in her name.

Ultimately, complainant no.1 received three duplicate policy deeds issued by the OP3 dated 10-07-2012 but complainant no.1 handed over two cheques to the OP4 being the agent of the OPs1,2 and 3 but in the policies name of the agent has been changed as Samson Hoda i.e. OP5 and name of the witness Rabi Barman.

Complainant has claimed that she is not aware of any person named Samson Hoda or Rabi Barman and she never signed in their presence and they never met them and no proposal form was handed over to them.  Moreover, two policy deeds in column no.9 occupation and job category has been mentioned as “Business and Owner” and in the column no.10 name of the company mentioned “Private and Self name”, in the column  no.11 nature of business mentioned “Property declares” and column no.12 per year income Rs.6 lakhs and without any medical test they whimsically mentioned medical declaration.  The above contents are same in aforesaid three policy bonds.  Moreover instead of one time policies the OPs concern regarding policy no.857597389 issued policy documents for ten years policy and per year premium Rs.53,020/- and against policy no.864542907 for whole life upto 2049 and per year premium Rs.3,35,641/- and other policy vide no.857592836 in the name of the complainant no.2 suo moto mentioned Rs.10,000/- per year premium for whole life policy i.e. upto 2081.  It is mentioned that complainant no.1 handed over two proposed policy terms without filling up the columns along with her signature.  No third proposal has been submitted by her.  The signature in the third proposal form has not been executed by the complainant no.2.  The signature of the aforesaid form is forged one.  The OP3 claiming to be an agent of OPs1, 2 and 3 never met with the complainants and they did not know the whereabouts of witness Rabi Barman who signed in the policy as witness and it is mentioned that the policy no.857592836 in the name of the complainant no.2 are false, fabricated and prepared behind her back.

After receiving the three duplicate policy bonds the complainant no.1 noticed the anomalies of the OPs 1 and 2 and in reply the OPs1 and 2 assured to look after the matter personally for settlement as early as possible.

When no response came from any corner both the complainants met at the office of the OPs 1 and 2 and as per their advice the complainants wrote a complaint to the OPs1 and 2 for cancellation those policies in the name of the complainants.  The complainant no.1 handed over two cancellation cheques being no.582819 and 582820 to OPs 1 and 2 as per NEFT on the very day and as per request of the OPs1 and 2 the complainant 1 agreed to accept the policy no.85759389 in the name of the complainant no.1.

From the statement of account of the said City Bank i.e. the proforma OP6 the complainant no.1 found that the OP withdrawal an amount of Rs.4 lakhs against the cheque nos.582817 and 582818 which was handed over to the OP4 on 02-07-2012 and 25-09-2012 issued one cheque to the complainant no.2 vide cheque no.582821 of Rs.10,000/- and till December, 2012 the OP did not forward as withdrawn the two cancellation cheques nos.582819 and 582920 issued on 17-09-2012. 

Complainant no.1 received one letter dated 23-02-2012 from the customer service of MAX Life Insurance Company where they mentioned that they look after the matter regarding the policy no.864542907 and policy no.857592836, they kept totally silent for indefinite period. 

The aforesaid act of the OPs are no doubt tantamount to deficiency in service and also an unfair trade practice when grievances of the complainants are genuine and OPs failed to redress the same and finding no other alternative complainant appeared before this Forum for getting redressal and for directing the OP to refund the amount of Rs.4 lakhs with 18% interest and also for compensation.

On the other hand, OPs1,2 and 3 by filing written statement submitted that insurance policy is a contract and parties are bound by the terms and conditions and the complainants no.1 and 2 have subscribed separate life insurance policies from the answering OPs.  Under the circumstances when two separate independent products/services/life insurance policies are taken by two independent persons/entities, the same cannot be clubbed in one single consumer complaint.  Moreover, the complainant 2 has no grievance against the answering OPs.  Further the terms of the contract have to be construed strictly without altering the nature of the contract as it may affect the interest of parties adversely.  It is further submitted by the OPs the witness Rabi Barman is not connected with the company and put their signatures on two proposal forms bearing no.864542907 dated 29-06-2012.  Two proposal forms bearing nos.864542907 and 857597389 were signed by complainant no.1 and a proposal form bearing no.857592836 was signed by the complainant no.2 for subscription of policy after understanding the contents of the same and OPs issued three policies.  Complainant No.1 aged about 63 years at the time of opening the said policy and so, it was considered that she should undergo some medical test and the medical tests were conducted on 29-06-2012 and based on the information and declaration provided in the proposal forms and believing the same to be true and on the basis of medical test reports, OPs issued two policies and same were duly delivered at the address of the complainants on 14-07-2012.  The complainants gave a request to issue duplicate policy on 09-08-2012 and three duplicate policies were despatched to the complainants on 21-08-2012.  On 15-09-2012 the complainant no.1 enquired about the policy details regarding policy no.857597389 and the same was explained to her and being satisfied the complainant no.1 showed her willingness to continue the policy. 

On 17-09-2012 the complainant no.1 was requested to surrender policy no.864542907 and that policy was surrendered after expiry of free look period of 15 days from the date of issue of policy within which period the policy could either be modified or returned by the complainant and full premium was refunded to the complainant and the letter dated 17-09-2012 are also annexed.  It is further submitted that answering OPs replied to the grievance of the complainant no. vide letter dated 31-10-2012 and practically no grievance was made by the complainant no.2 specifically on the ground of the present complaint  thus no letter seeking specimen signature was sent to complainant no.2.  However, the OP did not receive any request from the complainant no.2 for cancellation of the said policy but the same could not be cancelled as the same was outside free look period.  Further it is submitted that entire allegation is false and fabricated and in the light of the above reasons, the present complaint should be dismissed.

Decision with Reasons

On careful study and considering the complaint, written version including the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyer of both the parties and also considering the age of the complainant including her permanent address at Bankura it is clear that Sila Bangal never appeared before the office of the OP at Kolkata or Sales Manager of the OP, Mr. Samson Hoda never went to Bankura in the house of complainant for taking the cheque and the application form.  It is no doubt a fact that Samson Hoda, the Sales Manager of the OP is made a party in this case as OP5.  He has not explained from whom he collected form along with cheques.  He has also not stated who actually filled up the application forms.  But truth is that he is the Sales Manager of the OPs 1 to 3 and he has not challenged the allegation of the complainant.  Truth is that original copy of the policy document was not received by the complainant and when complainant came to learn about all these different types of malpractices as made by the fellow who appeared before her in his house at Bankura she wrote a letter to the OP’s authority from Bankura when duplicate copy of the policy document were issued and if we believe that one person named Narayan Chandra Kandar who was known to the complainant collected all papers, cheques and other documents that person has already made a party in this case as OP4.  He disclosed before the complainant the he is the agent of the OPs1 to 3 but OPs have denied his status as agent of the OPs then it is clear that Samson Hoda the OP5 who signed in those documents as Sales Manager is proved that he has spread some Dalals, Brokers on his behalf to collect such application form along with the cheque for the purpose of increasing his business and status of the Sales Manager of the OP and considering the present evidence of the complainant including the documents and particularly the conduct of Samson Hoda, Sales Manager of the OP it is clear that Samson Hoda is running a parallel business by engaging some unauthorized person to collect premium, application form and it is one kind of selling business of private insurance company and truth is that Samson Hoda engaged this person OP4.  Now, when it is flashed or proved that Samson Hoda engaged such unauthorized person as agent on his behalf for collecting premium amount he became silent and did not answer that he is one of the Sales Manager of the OPs who is treating in such a manner to deceive the middle-class family members of remote villages like Bankura etc.  Fact remains complainant never came to Kolkata for any medical verification but medical verification form is tagged with the application and it is the business of the private insurance company to tag such medical report and for which some Nursing Home are deputed but OP has failed to prove that complainant signed in the register of the same Nursing Home and report was given with signature of the party.

          In this regard it is clear that the OPs have adopted an unfair trade practice to procure such medical certificate in respect of the physical fitness of the so called insured.  Another factor is that in the present case only two cheques were issued by the complainant.  One for Rs.3 lakhs and another for Rs.1 lakh and those cheques nos. are 582617 and 582818.  Then question is how insurance policies were issued.  Then it is clear that this Samson Hoda the cheat Sales Manager of the OP Company deputed OP4 for the purpose of collection of premiums and application form from different villages.  But if actually he is a honestSales Manager it was his duty to talk with the said applicant before opening the policy whether she has signed for purchasing three policies by issuing two cheques.  OP has failed to produce any document to show that applicant prayed for dividing the said amount of two cheques for three applications.  So, it is clear that complainant never intended to purchase three insurance policies and, in fact, the Sales Manager, Samson Hoda deputed some cheat person on his behalf to collect the said cheque and to collect some blank application form with signature of the complainant.  Truth is that complainant’s daughter never signed in any application.  Further it is found OP has failed to produce the evidence of Samson Hoda the dishonest Sales Manager of the OP’s establishment and practically he is a party in this case.  If he has his honesty and dignity as Sales Manager he must have to appear before this Forum by submitting evidence challenging the allegation of the complainant but that has not been done because in the present case it is proved that OP5 is the Sales Manager of the OPs 1 to 3 but OPs MAX Life Insurance Company has not filed any written version on behalf of the OP5.  But they have filed written statement on behalf of OPs1 to 3, what simply proves that OPs1 to 3 have realized that their Sales Manager has committed offence and as because Sales Manager, Samson Hoda is proved a liar and all malpractices has been done by Samson Hoda for which OPs1 to 3 have not filed any statement on behalf of the Samson Hoda before this Forum to challenge the allegation of the complainants.

          Another factor is that only to save their dishonest cheat, Sales Manager, Samson Hoda, OPs1 to 3 are very silent about Samson Hoda and they are trying to say that there is no relation with OP4 with OPs1 to 3 but about Samson Hoda they are silent.  So, considering the entire facts and circumstances, it is clear Samson Hoda, the Sales Manger of the OPs1 to 3 I.e. OP5 by adopting unfair trade practice and also by deceitful manner engaged some dalals and brokers on behalf of the Insurance Company for collecting premium from villagers along with blank application form with signature of such applicants for opening insurance policies.  But anyhow in this case one of the consumer a cheat by profession after retirement wanted to purchase single payment premium policy for her future protection.  But when she found that she has been deprived, deceived or cheated by the deputed cheater agent on behalf of the OPs 1 to 3 through OP5 she straightway wrote letter to the OPs 1 to 3 when the entire malpractices as adopted by the Sales Manager of the OPs1 to 3 i.e. OP5 was proved then and there OPs1 to 3 began to write many things to the complainant without stating anything about the immoral activities by their Sales Manager, Samson Hoda and even at the time of argument on behalf of the OPs1 to 3 no whisper is made about the OP5’s immoral act but OPs1 to 3 tried to convince that complainant submitted the application to the OP5 but it is proved a false story.

          After overall evaluation of the entire materials and documents it is found that OP5, Sales Manager is a dishonest Sales manager who has adopted immoral activities by deputing some dalals, brokers on his behalf to collect the premium and blank application along with signature of the villages for opening policies and allurement is made by the OP5’s agent OP4 who allured them and practically the complainant stated that everything was handed over to the OP4 and these type of persons are engaged by the present insurance company and they are given some tips if they collect huge premiums from different villagers and in such a way some unemployed youth person are engaged as messengers agents on behalf of the Sales Manager of different private insurance company and bank and this Samson Hoda is one of the greatest cheater in the field of insurance business and he has been appointed by the OPs1 to 3 for that purposes so that Samson Hoda can deceive the insured by so many manner and to collect huge premiums and for which he has become a confirmed Sales Manager of OPs 1 to 3 and practically in West Bengal poorer sections of people are unable to appear before the Forum at Kolkata because their offices are within the jurisdiction of Kolkata and it is not possible for such insured to file such case and to contest before Kolkata Forum, so, many insured persons are unable to challenge such sort of misdeeds, malpractices and unfair trade practices by the private insurance companies but in the present case complainant is a retired teacher for which somehow she engaged a lawyer from Bankura who has conducted the case and now, the whole malpractices adopted by Samson Hoda, OP5 on behalf of OPs1 to 3 is well proved.  Truth is that complainant never went to Samson Hoda or to the office of the OPs at Kalkata.  Everything was collected by cheater Samson Hoda i.e. OP5 through OP4 and this OP4 is nothing but the engaged touts of the OP5 and such sort of touts are loitering in the remote villages and other districts and being engaged by the Sales Manager of the private insurance company and private companies are getting huge premiums and by adopting that procedure complainant has been deceived by the OP5 and no doubt OPs1 to 3 and 5 are jointly responsible when OPs1 to 3 have not tried to say anything against OP5 considering all the above facts and circumstances we are convinced to hold that the entire application form was filed by Samson Hoda or his deputed tout agent Narayan Chandra Kandar or by any writer of the OP5 and it was not filed by the complainant and at the same time complainant’s were not examined by the doctor and no medical certificate was given by any doctor after examining the complainant.  All those documents regarding medical check up is procured one which is become a practice of the private insurance company, bank etc.

          Another factor is that complainant Sila Bangal is a retired teacher and she is enjoying pension as a pensioner but his occupation and job category is noted as “Business and Owner” and name of the company mentioned “Private and Self name” but noting is no doubt the noting of the complainant or expression of the complainant but Samson Hoda a cheater Sales Manager always write the same so writer is not in a position to know the status of the lady and noted her status as noted in other insurance policies.  Further fact is that there is a signature of Rabi Barman as witness but anyhow his address is not noted so it is impossible to say who is that Rabi Barman whether he is another tout of Samson Hoda.  Further fact is that complainant signed in the application at Bankura whereas place of sign is noted as Kharagpur then question is how within a second complainant Sila Bangal went to Midnapore and signed at Midnapore on that date and on that date it was submitted at Kolkata.  If all those above facts are minutely taken into consideration it can safely be said that OP4 and OP5 with connivance adopting unfair trade practice managed to procure signature of the complainant by giving no chance and realize the fate of the application collected two cheques and thereafter, opened three insurance policies and they are sitting idle without verifying the intention of the complainant to open the police three in number or two in number etc. and without verifying other matter issued policies.  But fact remains this Samson Hoda somehow and otherwise with the help of his tout collected the documents without any effort of the complainant but if all these papers would be produced before this Forum in that case it would be found that the same were not of complainant and it is tried to show that the original policy documents were sent to the complainant but complainant has not received it so, she wrote a letter to OPs1 to 3 when duplicate copies were supplied which simply proves that OPs4 and 5 in connivance with each other adopting unfair trade practice on behalf of the OPs1 to 3 managed to procure signatures in the application and cheques and prepared three policies but truth is that it was not possible for the complainant to continue such a policy after retirement till long period even up to 2081,  Can a prudent man believe that such sort of policies are being marketed by the insurance companies and are being sold to old ladies at the age of 63.  Fantasy is here and there and that fantasy is shown by the OPs in the present case and considering all the above facts and circumstances it is proved that complainant has been deceived by the OP5 through his tout OP4 and everything was done back behind the knowledge of the complainant.  Complainant never filled up any portion of the application but same are act of Samson Hoda, the dishonest Sales Manager who should be removed at first by the OPs1 to 3 and no doubt OPs supporting the OP5 so it is proved that OPs1 to 3 are the main supporter in treating such unfair trade practice in selling the policies in such a manner and in that purpose OPs1 to 3 have appointed such a dishonest cheater, Sales Manager, so that they can secure huge amount from the market by cheating and deceiving the poorer section of people of different districts.  Truth is that complainant never appeared before this Forum never appeared before the OPs1 to 3 and 5 but policies were issued and such sort of policies are nothing but a procedure adopted by the private insurance company only for collecting the premium to run their business if the policies are not sold daily in that case this insurance companies shall be closed and locked then and there.  This is the model of selling insurance policy by the private insurance companies.

          On overall evaluation of the entire materials, facts and conduct of the OPs we are convinced that complainant has been deceived by the OPs and for which OPs1 to 3 and 5 are hereby directed to return the entire amount as claimed by the complainant i.e. Rs.4,03,599/- at once with an interest over the same 12% with effect from the date of encashment of the cheque by the OPs1 to 3 and till its full payment by the OPs1 to 3 and 5 jointly and severally to the complainant.

          For adopting unfair trade practice and for harassing the complainant in such a manner succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest with a cost of Rs.10,000/- against OPs1 to 3 and same is allowed ex parte against OPs4 and 5 with a cost of Rs.10,000/- each but the complaint against OP6 is dismissed ex parte without any cost.

          OPs 1 to 3 are hereby directed to refund the sum of Rs.4,03,599/-(Rupees Four lakh three thousand five hundred ninety nine only) treating the said policies as cancelled along with interest @12% over the same since the date of his encashment and till its final payment to the complainant.

          For adopting unfair trade practice and to deceive the complainant in such a manner OPs1 to 3 and 5 jointly and severally shall have to pay penal damages as compensation to the extent of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant.

          For adopting such unfair trade practice and also to deceive the customer in such a fashion by OPs1 to 3 and 5 they are jointly and severally shall have to pay punitive damages of Rs.30,000/- to this Forum and it is imposed for checking such malpractices as adopted by the OPs1 to 3 and 5.

          OPs are directed to comply the order within one month from the date of this order failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order and also for disobeyance of the Forum’s order penal interest @Rs.200/- shall be imposed against OPs1 to 3 jointly and severally and also OP5 and if it is collected it shall be deposited to this Forum including punitive damages as imposed and if any reluctant attitude on the part of the OPs are found in that case penal action shall be started against them u/s.27 of the C.P. Act.