Order No. 22 dt. 18/08/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant on the basis of the assurance given by o.ps. subscribed in the policy of o.p. no.1 and the complainant at the time of obtaining policy was assured that the premium payment term is confined to just one year and nothing is payable, as such there was no chance of lapse of the policy in any circumstances. The agent of o.ps. approached the complainant that he was short of fulfilling the target and requested the complainant to pay the amount for one time policy and accordingly the complainant paid the amount with an idea that at the end of 25 years he would be able to get Rs.25 lakhs upon buying said insurance policy on once spot payment of premium of Rs.5 lakhs. The complainant had the idea that he would be able to have at least some support during the period of his retired life after 25 years. The complainant was assured by the men of o.p. no.1 that the signature bearing on draft policy document duly filled in would reach to the complainant within a week and thereafter the complainant has to take final decision and send back to o.p. preferably in next 15 days from the date of its receipt after the perusal of the documents. The complainant thereafter went to USA and on his return he contacted the o.p. no.4 to know about the said draft copy of the insurance policy and the withdrawn amount of Rs.5 lakhs from his account. The complainant subsequently came to learn that the draft policy document was sent after the stipulated period of 15 days and accordingly the complainant could not avail of the opportunity to raise his objection during the free look period. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the amount of Rs.5 lakhs and interest and compensation of Rs.3 lakhs.
In spite of receipt of notices the o.p. nos.1 to 3 did not contest this case by filing w/v and as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against them.
The o.p. no.4 contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that o.p. no.3 is a bank and there is no allegation of deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no.4, therefore the case is not maintainable against the o.p. no.4. It was further stated that as per Sec 230 of Indian Contract Act an agent can neither sue or be sued except under the special circumstances. It was also stated that the complainant alleged that an employee of Axis Bank was entrusted with the responsibility of approaching and explaining the trusted and loyal customers of the bank in just providing them an option of investment in Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd. who had then at a tie up with Axis Bank Ltd. If there would have been any assistance to the prospective customers o.p. no.4 would have explained the entire policy and terms and conditions to the customers. The complainant has signed on the insurance application form agreeing to the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The role of Axis Bank employee is always limited to recommending a policy as referral agent and no further than that. There was no contract between the complainant and o.p. no.4. On the basis of the said fact o.p. no.4 prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant obtained the policy of o.p. no.1?
- Was there any role of o.p. no.4 in influencing the complainant for purchasing the policy?
- Whether the complainant exercised his option for cancellation of the policy within free look period?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant being an account holder of o.p. no.4 through one its officers introduced one Md. Ali Hasnain being the financial adviser under o.p. nos.1 to 3. The complainant was told about a policy of o.p. no.1 and the Said Md. Ali Hasnain the officer of o.p. nos.1 to 3 was alluring and convincing the complainant that if he buys the policy by payment of Rs.5 lakhs one time premium and after 25 years he will get Rs.25 lakhs. The complainant was also informed that a draft of the application policy would be sent to the complainant within 15 days but no such document was sent. The complainant in the mean time went o USA and after his return while he contacted the o.p. no.4, he was informed that Rs.5 lakhs was debited from his account. The complainant thereafter made contact with o.p. no.4 wherefrom he was informed that the bank had no role to play in respect of the purchase of the said policy and thereby o.p. no.4 totally evaded their responsibility regarding the influence exerted by the branch official for purchasing the policy. The complainant did not pray to apply for cancellation of the policy within the free look period. On the basis of the said fact ld. lawyer for the complainant emphasized that a direction be given upon the o.ps. for refund of the amount as well as other relief.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. no.4 argued that o.p. no.4 is a commercial bank having no relationship with the insurance company, if any contract is made between the complainant and branch manager through the financial adviser of o.p. nos.1 to 3 the same was made between them on the basis of their individual capacity. The bank cannot be held responsible for such issuance of policy and also for prayer made by the complainant for cancellation of the policy. The o.p. no.4 had no role to play in purchasing of the policy by the complainant. The complainant being fully aware of the terms and conditions of the policy put his signature on the form for obtaining the policy. The complainant in order to save the period of raising objection regarding the cancellation of the policy within the free look period manufactured such story which is not at all believable and as such, o.p. no.4 prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant being an educated person had an account with o.p. no.4 and o.p. no. 4 is a commercial bank. The complainant made allegation against the bank officials that he introduced with the financial adviser of o.p. nos.1 to 3 and believing the assurance of the said adviser of o.p. nos.1 to 3 coupled with the benefit that would accrue as allured by the bank officials the complainant paid one time premium of Rs.5 lakhs. The complainant claimed that he was informed by the representative of o.p. nos.1 to 3 as well as the bank officials that a draft policy would be sent to him within 15 days and after going through the same he can take proper decision. The complainant being an educated person claimed that he put signature on all the papers without going through the same since he was in a hurry for going to USA. He also claimed that the policy was not sent to the complainant after the assurance given by o.ps. The evidence produced by the complainant does not corroborate with the said fact. In order to evade his responsibility to avail the benefit of 15 days free look period the complainant manufactured a story which is not at all believable. It is pertinent to mention here that the bank official who allegedly introduced the financial adviser of o.p. nos.1 to 3 did the said act as an individual having the acquaintance with both the parties viz. the complainant and the representative of o.p. nos.1 to 3. In view of such fact we hold that the bank official did not discharge his official duty in this respect and o.p. no.4 cannot be held liable for any hardship caused to the complainant. It is also relevant to mention here that the complainant failed to raise his objection by applying to o.p. no.1 for cancellation of the policy within free look period and as per the IRDA guideline after the expiry of the free look period the terms and conditions of the policy are binding upon both the parties i.e. insured and insurer, therefore we hold that the claim made by the complainant that he was allured or he became astonished by the acts of o.ps. cannot be believed and therefore, we conclude that the case filed by the complainant has got no substance and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.116/2013 is dismissed on contest against the o.p. no.4 and dismissed ex parte against other o.ps. without cost.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
