Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/39/2014

Sh Raj Kumar Gandhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

25 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/39/2014
Date of Institution	:	17/01/2014
Date of Decision	:	25/03/2015

 

 

Sh. Raj Kumar Gandhi son of late Sh. Sat Pal Gandhi resident of House No.76, Bakshi Niwas, Dhangu Road, Pathankot (Punjab).

Presently residing at house No.1270, Sector 8, Chandigarh (U.T).

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited through its Chairman c/o Max House, 1, Dr. Jha Marg, Okhla, New Delhi 110020.

……Opposite Party

 

 

QUORUM:	P.L.AHUJA	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                                               

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Anil Mehra, Counsel for complainant
		Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Counsel for OPs.

                       

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh. Raj Kumar Gandhi, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited, Opposite Party (hereinafter called the OP), alleging that he was approached by an agent of the respondent (OP) for an insurance policy and believing it to be a genuine offer he had signed for a policy “Life Partner Plus Plan”.  The OP issued Policy No.852795228. A premium of Rs.47,122/- was paid at the signing of the policy.  According to the complainant, no terms and conditions were ever detailed to him at the time of signing the agreement/policy and to the best of his understanding, the policy was for a premium to be paid once for the entire life. Thereafter, the complainant found that the policy was not worth continuing and requested the agent and the company to refund the amount. It has been alleged that the agent made numerous cuttings on the proposal form without complainant’s consent and he also did not countersign the cuttings. The complainant made a request in writing on 9.7.2013 and received a reply on 23.7.2013.  It has been averred by the complainant that the policy was sold to him by misrepresenting facts. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint with the prayer for the refund of the premium alongwith the compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. 
2.         In its written statement, OP has taken a number of preliminary objections including that the complainant is not a consumer; the complaint involves disputed question of facts and law; the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties etc.  On merits it has been averred that on the basis of proposal form filled up by the complainant, the policy was sent to him which was received by him.  The policy was for a term of 20 years.  It has been denied that the premium was to be paid once for the entire policy. It has been pleaded that while filling up the proposal form, an agent acts as an agent of the insured. It has been averred that the complainant never applied for cancellation of the policy within the 15 days of Policy Review Period. It has been contended that the complainant failed to deposit the premium despite receipt of the renewal premium reminder and as such the policy in question became lapsed.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.         In his rejoinder, the complainant has controverted the stand of the OP and reiterated his own.  It has been contended that Annexure A-3 has no date and even policy holder’s signatures are missing.  It has been pleaded that as per the policy, there was a 15 days period but the policy was not received in that period and as such no such period was ever provided to the complainant to return the policy and get the money back. 
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by both sides and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties. 
6.         The learned counsel for the complainant has urged that the policy, copy of which is Annexure C-8, was sold to him by misleading the facts by the agent of the OP.  He has also argued that the agent of the OP made numerous cuttings on the proposal form without the consent of the complainant, therefore, there was no valid contract.  He has also argued that at the time of sale of the policy, it was told that it was a one time policy but later on the complainant came to know that the policy was for 20 years term. The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that the insurance policy was not sent to the complainant within the stipulated period of 15 days because the copy of acknowledgement (Annexure A-3) produced by the OP does not bear his signature.  He has also argued that it was also incumbent upon the OP to see the financial position of the complainant and the copies of the income tax returns produced by the complainant alongwith his rejoinder show that he did not have sufficient income for making payment of the premium. He has also argued that on the proposal form, there was requirement of signature of a witness but Mr. P.K. Anand, who was a Principal Officer of the OP, put his signature as a witness and this act is also illegal.  He has also argued that the OP had sent a letter dated 23.6.2013 (Annexure A-7) which shows that the OP is ready to revive the policy but the complainant is not interested to revive the policy and is interested in getting back the premium amount with compensation and litigation expenses.
7.         We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above arguments.  At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the complainant has not impleaded the agent who allegedly misrepresented the facts and made numerous cuttings on the proposal form and told the complainant that it was a one time payment, as a party in the complaint. The presence of the said agent was necessary for effectually and completely deciding the issues involved in the complaint, therefore, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. 
8.         The contention of the complainant that the agent made numerous cuttings on the proposal form without taking his consent is also not substantiated by the record.  The copy of the proposal form (Annexure A-1) signed by the complainant on 26.6.2011 in English shows that there is over-writing on the premium paying term which has been changed from figure 10 to 20 and coverage amount which has been changed from 15,00,000/- to 10,00,000/-.  However, both these cuttings are bearing the signatures/ initials of the complainant.  So, it cannot be stated that the cuttings in the proposal form were made without the consent of the complainant.  At any rate, if any forgery has been committed by the agent, then the complainant can agitate this issue before the civil court and this Forum while exercising summary jurisdiction is not in a position to record a finding in respect of fraud and forgery. The complainant is an educated person and he has affixed his signatures on the declaration below the proposal form in English.  The proposal form shows the mode of payment to be semi-annual and the premium paying term to be 20 years and modal premium to be Rs.46,404.80 and total premium to be Rs.47,122/- after adding the service tax. Therefore, we cannot accept that the complainant was given this impression that it was a one time payment. Apart from it, when the complainant received the insurance policy (Annexure C-8), he came to know that the duration of the coverage/maturity date was 27 years/26^th June 2038 and the due dates of the payment of premiums and the last installment of premium were 26^th June and December every year; 26^th December 2030.  Thus, even if it is assumed that the complainant was not aware of the contents of the proposal form, the complainant became aware of the term of the policy through the insurance policy (Annexure C-8) which was sent to him on 29.6.2011 but the complainant made a request in writing to the OP (copy of that request has not been produced) only on 9.7.2013. 
9.         To cap it all, the forwarding letter of the insurance policy (Annexure C-8) clearly shows that the complainant had an option to cancel the policy by returning the original of policy with a written request to the OP within 15 days from the date of receipt. It is nowhere the case of the complainant in the complaint that he did not receive the policy within a few days of its issuance.  It was only after filing of the written statement and seeing that his signatures were absent on the acknowledgement (Annexure A-3) that the complainant took a plea in the rejoinder that the policy was delivered very late after the completion of 15 days, therefore, he did not have any time to surrender the same. Significantly, the complainant has not indicated the date of receipt of the policy even in his rejoinder. Even if it is assumed that he was delivered the policy very late, still the complainant had the option to cancel the policy within 15 days of the date of receipt of policy because it is nowhere mentioned in the forwarding letter (Annexure C-8) that the policy could be cancelled within 15 days of the date of issuance of the policy. It is well settled that the terms of contract have to be construed strictly without altering the nature of the contract as it may affect the interest of parties adversely. Since in this case the complainant did not exercise the option of cancellation of policy within 15 days of the receipt of the policy and as per his own version made a request to the OP only on 9.7.2013, therefore, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the policy in question has lapsed because the complainant has failed to deposit the renewal premium despite letters Annexure A-4 and A-5.  We agree with the contention of the OP that as per the terms and conditions, since there is no surrender value, therefore, no amount is payable to the complainant.
10.         In regard to the contention that Mr. P.K. Anand affixed his signature as an attesting witness on the proposal, the complainant has failed to produce any such instructions which could show that Mr. P.K. Anand could not become a witness to the proposal form.  As far as the contention that financial position of the complainant was not enquired into by the OP at the time of the proposal form is concerned, it is pertinent that no such objection was raised by the complainant in the complaint.   It was only at the time of rejoinder that the complainant produced copies of income tax returns to show that he did not have sufficient funds to pay the premium of three policies.  The said contention is an afterthought.  If the complainant was not having sufficient resources for purchasing three policies, he could have at least exercised the option of cancellation of the policy within 15 days of the receipt of the policy/policies which was not exercised by him.  Therefore, at this stage, his contention that he was not having sufficient sources of income to make the payment of premium of three policies is devoid of any force.
11.         Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  Resultantly, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
25/03/2015	[Surjeet Kaur]	[P. L. Ahuja]
hg	Member	President