Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/42/2015

Piara Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Max New York Life Insurance Co Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

H S Kundra, SS Kundra

15 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR. 

 

Consumer Complaint No    :   42 of 22.04.2015 

Date of Decision              :   15.01.2016      

Piara Singh son of Sansar Singh Resident of Village Pakhowal, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur.

                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1. Managing Director & CEO: Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited, 11^th Floor, DLF Square, Jacaranda Marg, DLF, Phase-11, Gurgaon 122002.
2. Branch Manager, Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited, 1^st Floor, Chandigarh Road, Adacent to Punjab & Sind Bank, Nawanshahr City, SBS Nagar.

…Opposite parties

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:         

SH.G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

MS.SUSHMA HANDOO, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

For Complainant           :         Sh.S.S. Kundra, Advocate.

For OPs                         :         Sh.Nipun Bhalla, Advocate

 

ORDER 

PER G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

1.       Complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as “OPs”) by alleging that he is an illiterate person and can sign in Punjabi language alone.  Further, it is claimed that in May 2009, he (complainant)  was approached by sales representatives of Ops namely Sh.Manoj Kumar and Associate Gurdeep Singh for alluring him to invest money with OPs.  As per that allurement, the amount will be invested in one time investment of FDRs.  At that time complainant disclosed the said agents as if he is investing the money in safe amount and not interested in      investment of money in the schemes.  On assurance of agent of OPs, complainant put signatures on some documents.  However, the agents mischievously got signatures on some FDRs Bonaza scheme documents.  Terms and conditions of the said scheme were not legible to normal eye and when complainant pointed the same, then agents assured as if complainant need not worry.  Even, complainant was promised for supply of Punjabi Translation documents.  Sum of Rs.50,000/- was handed over to agents of OPs by complainant with assurance that the said amount will be invested in FDRs.  However, when the FDRs not received, then complainant contacted branch manager of Ops at Nawanshahr, who too misrepresented the complainant.  The receipts supplied to complainant are in such language, which cannot be understood.  The agents assured complainant that the deposited money will go double in Five years, but complainant will have to pay two installments of Rs.50,000/- per annum.  Even, the agents disclosed that in case complainant does not deposit the remaining installments, then already deposited amount of Rs.50,000/- will stand forfeited.  In view of this complainant was compelled to pay two yearly installments of Rs.50,000/- each.  After completion of five years, complainant visited office of Op No.2 and asked for the refund of double amount as assured to him, but he was shocked to know as if the amount has been invested in policies No.746997584; 746997576 and 742999162.  Thereafter, complainant had been visiting office of OPs at Nawanshahr regularly for seeking return of amount with interest at the market rate, but to no effect.  By pleading deficiency in service on part of OPs, directions sought to OPs to refund Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith interest.  Compensation of Rs.50,000/- also claimed.

2.       OPs appeared in response to the issued notice and filed joint written statement for claiming inter alia that complaint is premature because complainant had not submitted the required documents despite repeated requests.  Besides it is claimed that complaint had been filed with malafide intention and this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint, particularly when the relief claimed in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.  The terms and conditions of the policy were expressly made known to the complainant at the time of purchase of policy.  It is also claimed that complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands because he has suppressed the material facts.  False and frivolous complaint alleged to be filed for abusing the process of law.  Even, complainant has no locus standi and cause of action.  Complainant himself approached OPs for purchase of policies and after being satisfied with the terms and conditions of the different insurance plans, three insurance policies were purchased by complainant.  These policies were issued on basis proposal forms submitted by complainant himself under his signatures after understanding the terms and conditions thereof.    Since the inception of the policy, objections have not been raised concerning the policies by complainant.  Even, during free look period of 15 days, complainant has not submitted any objections as to the terms and conditions of the policy.  Complainant paid various installments of three policies, which clearly indicates as if he is well aware of the terms and conditions of the policies.  Complainant alleging mis-sale of policies after gap of  five years and as such complaint alleged to be barred by limitation.  After acceptance of the proposal submitted by complainant, the regular insurance policies were issued.  Complainant had paid three installments of all the three policies.  There is no IRDA guidelines for sending the translation of policies in regional language.  Policy packs were duly dispatched to the complainant, but despite that he did not raise any objections.  As allegations of cheating are levelled and as such those can be probed in regular and proper trial by competent court of law.  Contract of insurance is governed by terms and conditions of policy.  Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by praying for dismissal of complaint.  

3.       Counsel for complainant to prove his case tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A of complainant alongwith Photostat copies of documents i.e. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and then closed the evidence.

4.       On the other hand, counsel for OPs has tendered affidavit of Reena Behl, Deputy Manager as Ex.OPA alongwith photocopies of documents i.e. Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-20 and then closed the evidence. 

5.       Written arguments by counsel for the parties not submitted, but oral arguments of counsel for the parties were heard and records gone through minutely.

6.       Ops through application dated 13.07.2015 expressed desire of settlement of the claim by offering to pay Rs.60,000/- against policy No.742999162; Rs.45,000/- each against policies No.746997584 and 746997574.  That offer of settlement was not accepted by counsel for complainant by suffering statement on 28.07.2015.  In view of the offer of settlement, it is obvious that OPs willing to return Rs.1,50,000/-, the received amount of the installments/premiums.   So, the claim for return of Rs.1,50,000/- put forth through Para No.15 of the claim petition liable to be accepted because admission is the best proof.

7.       It is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that fraud was committed with complainant by agents Manoj Kumar and Gurdeep Singh of OPs because they misrepresented as if the deposited amount will go double in five years.  It is contended that complainant, an illiterate person can put signatures in Punjabi alone and as such is not aware of the terms and conditions of the policies, but he by reposing faith in the agents of the OPs put signatures on the papers placed before him and as such OPs adopted illegal trade practice.  Even, if complainant an illiterate person putting signatures in Punjabi language alone, but despite that he paid two more installments as per his assertions contained in the Para No.8 of the complaint and as such it is obvious that virtually complainant acquiesced in the purchase of the policies.  Had really fraud prior to the deposit of two installments been committed with complainant, then he would not have deposited the two installments again after commission of this fraud in 2009.  The conduct of complainant in depositing two installments subsequently leans in favour of holding that plea of fraud is not correct.

8.       Proposal forms Ex.OP-1, Ex.OP-3 and Ex.OP-4 were submitted by complainant on 19.05.2009 and thereafter welcome letters Ex.OP-5 to Ex.OP-7 were sent to complainant on 27/28.05.2009 for informing him that the policy documents are sent to him through which the features, benefits and terms of the insurance policies are explained.  Dispatch of these letters alongwith alleged annexed documents disputed by counsel for complainant by contending that the postal receipts have not been produced.  Even if the postal receipts have not been produced alongwith these dispatched letters, despite that complainant is aware of number of each of three policies and that is why he mentioned the same in Para No.9 of the complaint.  Only that person will be able to mention the number of policies exactly, who has got information about the same.  In view of this the inference is obvious that actually complainant got knowledge of the issue of the policies in question at earliest after May 2009  and that is why he paid two more installments under fear that the earlier deposited amount of Rs.50,000/- may not stand forfeited.  This deposit of two installments under fear admitted in Para No.8 of the complaint.  If really it would have been a case of mis-sale of the policies, then complainant instead of depositing two more installments, would have knocked at the doors of this Forum immediately after getting knowledge of number of the policies, but this complaint filed on 22.04.2015 i.e. after more five years of issue of welcome letters on 27/28.05.2009 as referred above.  So plea of fraud is not sustainable.

9.        Allegations of fraud and misrepresentation requires deep probe after record of evidence and as such this Forum in summary proceedings cannot decide that question, particularly when the circumstances pointed above leans in favour of holding that plea of fraud is not sustainable.  As per law laid down in cases P.N. Khanna Vs Bank of India II(2015) CPJ 54 (NC); Bright Transport Co. Vs. Sangli Sahkari Bank Ltd II(2012) CPJ 151 (NC); Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Muni Mahesh Patel VI(2006) SLT 436 (SC) ; Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. I(1998) CPJ 13 (NC); M/s Singal Swaroop Ispat Ltd. Vs United Commercial Bank III (1992) CPJ 50 (NC) and Ranju Devi Vs Branch Manager, State Bank of India 2015 (IV) CLT 131 (JHK), proceedings before Consumer Forums are summary in nature due to which allegations of theft, forgery and misrepresentation cannot be decided by it because of requirement of adduction of elaborate evidence and appreciation thereof.  As complex question of law and fact including fraud requires deep investigation and as such if at all complainant wants to prove fraud and misrepresentation, then he should approach the Civil Court or the Criminal Court. 

10.     There is no provision under IRDA Regulation of 2013 or in the contract agreement to send vernacular copy of policy to policyholder and as such in case the vernacular copy of policy documents not sent by OPs, then no fault can be attributed to them, because even if complainant is illiterate, despite that he could have approached others for knowing the contents of policy documents or the welcome letters referred above.  Even if averment qua explaining the documents to complainant not made in the written statement, despite that complainant by exercise of due diligence in span of five years prior to the filing of the complaint, could have detected as to what were the terms and conditions of the documents with respect to which he deposited two installments against three insurance policies.  As Ops themselves offered to refund Rs.1,50,000/- at earliest and complainant remained mum for five years after alleged fraud and the amount was invested in unit linked insurance policies, which are always subject to investment risks of the market and as such due to negligence of complainant in not pursuing the mater at earliest, he is not entitled for any interest on the deposited amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. However, complainant had to suffer mentally because of non-refund of Rs.1,50,000/- earlier by Ops and as such he is entitled to compensation of Rs.3,000/-, but litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/-.   

11.     In view of our above observations and findings, the present complaint is allowed as under:-

I.       OPs are directed to return back Rs.1,50,000/- to complainant,

II.      Pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental pain and sufferings and

III.     Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

          The aforesaid orders of payment be complied by OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copies of this order.       

12.     The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.                          

Dated 15.01.2016                                                         

 

Sd/-                                                                      Sd/-

(Sushma Handoo)                                                        (G. K. Dhir)

Member                                                               President