Haryana

StateCommission

A/171/2015

GURBHAG SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAX LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ANURAG GOEL

11 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                                         First Appeal No.171 of 2015

Date of Institution: 20.02.2015

Date of Decision: 11.08.2015

 

Gurbhag Singh S/o Sh.Jeet Ram, R/o village Hakimpur, Tehsil Kalka, Distt. Panchkula.

…..Appellant

 

Versus

 

1.      Manager, Max Life Insurance Company Ltd. SCO. No.48, Sector-11, Panchkula.

2.      Manager Axis Bank Ltd., Ram Bagh Road Near Sat Vivekanand Study Hall, Kalka.

3.      Max Life Insurance Company Ltd. Operation Centre Ltd., Plot No.9-A, Sector 18-A, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon.

4.      Vandana Thakur C/o Axis Bank Ltd, Ram Bagh Road, near Sat Vivekanand Study Hall, Kalka.

…..Respondents

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                         

Present:              Mrs.Anurag Goel, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Priya Singhi, Advocate counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 3.

Mr.Maninder Singh, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.2.

None for the respondent No.4.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

          It was alleged by complainant that he purchased policy No.889549838 of Max Life Insurance Company Ltd for five years. Opposite party (O.P.) No.4/respondent No.4 obtained his signatures on blank papers and withdrew Rs.25,000/- from his account No.8805 with Axis Bank Kalka i.e. O.P.No.2-respondent No.2  as premium.  He was under impression that there would be only one installment of Rs.25,000/-. Later-on he received phone call from O.P.No.2 and was told that policy was for six years.  Thereafter he received another phone call for third installment.  When enquired, it came to his notice that policy was not for six years, but, was for 12 years.  When he contacted O.P.No.4 about her insurance in the beginning she has shown her helplessness.  O.P.s be directed to return Rs.75,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum because there was deficiency in service on their part besides compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses.

2.      O.P.Nos.1 and 3 filed the joint reply controverting his averments and alleged that he obtained insurance policy plan of 12 years under which sum assured was Rs.1,22,084/-  only six premiums were to be paid whereas complainant deposited three installments.  All the things were explained to the complainant when he obtained insurance policy.  It was no-where mentioned in the contract that the policy was for six years. Complainant never surrendered insurance policy within period mentioned in terms and conditions. Vide letter dated 19.03.2014 it was alleged by him that wrong policy was sold to him.  Averments raised to this effect were altogether wrong.  Policy purchased in the year 2011 was enforced on 19.12.2011, so the complaint was time barred.  Objections about concealing true facts, cause of action etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      It was alleged by O.P.No.2 that the dispute was in between the complainant and O.P.Nos.1,3 and 4.  There was no contract with it, so it is not liable in any manner in this dispute.  Objections about mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      It was alleged by O.P.No.4 that there was no previty of contract in between her and complainant.  For redressal of his grievances he was to file complaint against O.P.No.1 to O.P.No.3 only.  She disclosed all the policies and their terms and conditions to the complainant when he obtained the same.  The alleged conversation with complainant was part of his official duties and took place after three years of obtaining policy.  He himself approached her and had shown his willingness to purchase this insurance policy.  All the terms and conditions were explained to him and thereafter he purchased this policy.

5.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 16.01.2015.

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal

7.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

8.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that  O.P.No.4 told him that it was one time payment insurance policy of five years.  She was working with the bank in which he was having account.  He believed her and singed blank papers.  She withdrew Rs.20,000/- from her account.  Later on when he received telephonic calls about payment of second and third installments he enquired about the matter and it came to his notice that policy was for 12 years.  During conversation, copy of which is Ex.C-5, it was told by her that she cannot do anything and had shown her helplessness.  Conversation shows that policy was for five years.  Proposal form Ex.R-1 is having his signature only on one page. The terms and conditions mentioned therein were not explained to him. As per clause No.4 of insurance policy of Ex.R-2, insurance company was having right to amend contract. When he wrote letter to insurance company why contract was not amended is no where explained.  In this way there is deficiency in service and after setting aside impugned order dated 16.01.2015 he be granted relief as claimed for. 

9.      This argument is devoid of any force. Version of the complainant cannot be presumed to be true as a gospel truth.  To prove period of insurance policy it was his bounden duty to lead evidence to this effect.  As per insurance policy it was bounden duty of the complainant to comply with the terms and conditions agreed in between them.  Just on the basis of arguments and averments of complainant it cannot be presumed that the columns were blank when his  signatures were obtained thereupon. As per column 7 of Annexure R-1, complainant is running a business and is educated person. It cannot expect from him that he signed blank papers because he must be aware about the consequences of signing blank documents. Had he been a layman then it could have been a different matter.  Hon’ble Supreme Court  has opined in M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s Agarwal Steel 2010 (1) SCC 83 as under:-

“Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114-Document signed by  party-there is a presumption, unless there is proof of fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood-Presumption is stronger in case of businessmen they being careful people.”

           So it is to be presumed that proposal form was signed by complainant after going through the contents of the same.

10.    It is well settled proposition of law that parties are bound by terms and conditions of the agreement as opined by Hon’ble Supreme Court  in  United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others Vs.Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. and others (2000) 10 SCC 19, Sikka Papers Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others. AIR 2009 SC 2834.  The contract has to be construed having reference to the stipulations contained in it and no artificial far-fetched meaning could be given to the words appearing in it.  When it is settled by the Hon’ble Apex court that the parties cannot deviate from the terms and conditions settled in between them, complainant cannot allege to mould them.

11.    There is no reason to disagree with findings of Learned District Forum. Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

August 11th, 2015

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Presiding Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.